Actually I've got lots of queries but I've been chastised by el president so I'll just mention a couple, but only if you promise not to tell him I'm asking. (I'm definitely not asking him, or any of his staff, or councillors, or friends)
Why is the figure for employees shown on the website as "over 140"?
When I read this vague term it reminded me of when I asked how many shire staff attended an Enquiry by Design meeting and I was told they had no precise number but were prepared to say that "several staff attended"! You have to laugh, they are so slippery they can't be counted, like eels in a barrel, as us rustics might say.
Is this figure of over 140 a weasel approach to dissemination of information? When was the last time the figure for number of employees was even close to 140? Looking back over the past few years I'd say some years.
The figure the Workforce Plan 2013-2017 appears to be showing is 168.04, but I might be misreading it. If I am then it's honest feedback that the communication isn't meeting my requirements.
So what could this disparity between the figure of around 140 employees and 168.04 FTEs actually mean? That they have 140 employees but some of them do two or more jobs? That they have a few phantom employees?
(Don't laugh phantoms on the payroll was always one of the commonest frauds - back in the day)
Or maybe they don't know how to update the website, don't realise websites are intended to reflect up to date information?
The other problem is that if the employee number is growing at such a different rate to the value of rateable properties then maybe we need more information on what they are all doing. Is all of the extra growth attributable to the tourism/vistors/holiday home factor?
It needs explaining in simple terms that someone like me can understand.
How much of the 8.9% pa increase in workforce costs represents increased payments to employees, and how much is an increase in the number of employees? Or even more concerning maybe it represents an increase in costs for the management of those employees!
We need the workforce FTE table to show us the past 5-10 years so that we can see the variances in the different categories. Sport and Recreational services looks high, but maybe its always been high, and maybe its growth is self funding through the charges that are recovered.
