We have another array of unnecessary jobs this week. Surrey County Council is looking to expand its Change Department – something I have commented on in the past. This time it’s looking for a Change Communications Manager on £54,085 per annum.

Surrey is also looking for in Internal Communications Co-ordinator. Internal communications is a subject that gets many people commenting on this website. There are some who passionately defend this role. There are others who work or have worked in the corporate world and agree with me that when a company is looking to reduce costs, this is one of the first jobs to go. Surrey County Council seems intent on increasing the amount of backroom managers, when other councils are looking at reducing the numbers. Almost every week there seems to be a new job advert looking for change managers. How much change are they contemplating?

If you live in Reading, expect a knock on your door or your telephone to ring, as you may be contacted by one of the councils ten Seasonal Personal Travel Plan Advisors. Here’s what the job advert says:

The role of the Seasonal Personal Travel Plan Advisor involves discussing with people how they travel to work, school, go shopping, etc and identifying if there are different travel options available to them. Once the options are identified, the Advisor then provides information and incentives to encourage people to try out different ways of travel.

With the cost of fuel at a record high, many people – including myself – are thinking about the journeys we make. Do we really need the council spending our taxes to advise us on how we travel to work or go shopping? Another bit of state interference we can do without, with ten of thousands of pounds wasted over the summer months that could be spent on front-line services or reducing council tax bills.

The title this week though goes to the European Union. It is looking to employ an Executive Director of the South West European Partnership. Whilst government departments and councils have seen their budgets reduced, the EU continues to spend money regardless of the economic climate. It likes to think itself immune from what is going on around it; as if it’s living inside a bubble.

UK taxpayers are being dragged into more bailouts for the failing Euro, and we have launched a petition requesting the government to say no to more Eurozone bailouts. This is on top of the £20.8 million net contribution we pay every day to Brussels. Now it wants us to pay the salary for a director whose job is ‘to lead the development of this new social enterprise and ensure clients receive the highest quality of European Services.’ This job will also involve extensive travel between the UK and Brussels, so on top of the £50-£60K salary, you can add a substantial amount of extra costs as this person shuttles their way between the two places.

This non-job has more to do with public relations, and is a typical example of EU largesse. This is on top of the costs of maintaining and staffing existing EU offices in what it regards as the different European Regions. It is the duty of our government to say no to increases in the EU budget, and no to more bailouts. We are already generous net contributors, and should be looking at reducing our payments, not spending more, and paying for non-jobs like this one.

The New York Times reports today that the Metropolitan Police have had to warn Rwandan dissidents living in London that their government may be plotting to kill them:

“Reliable intelligence states that the Rwandan government poses an imminent threat to your life,” the warning letters read. They added, “Although the Metropolitan Police Service will take what steps it can to minimize the risk, the police cannot protect you from this threat on a day-by-day, hour-by-hour basis.”

Needless to say, this is extremely serious. What is really shocking though is that in a very real sense, our money is supporting the Government suspected of plotting murder in London.

DFID statistics (Statistics in International Development, Table 14.1: Total DFID Expenditure and GPEX by Recipient Country (Africa) 2005/06 – 2009/10) show that we gave budget support of £38.7 million in 2009-10. Budget support is the money that goes directly to the Government and, while we might specify things we want them to spend it on, is in practice available for them to spend however they please. Another £14.1 million of aid is given through other organisations like NGOs and then we tend to make further contributions through multilateral channels like the EU. The £38.7 million is just the money their government gets.

Growing repression from the Rwandan authorities has been chronicled over some time by commentators like Ian Birrell. In  September 2009, he wrote about the problem, making this very powerful point:

“Britain is Rwanda’s biggest donor, pumping in £52m this year in direct contributions, a form of aid-giving reserved for those that have proved good governance. But human rights groups are increasingly concerned by restrictions on freedom of speech in Rwanda; even the BBC has not escaped a ban on its local language service. And other major donors, including the Netherlands and Sweden, suspended direct aid after a UN report highlighted Rwanda’s role in eastern Congo, where war has claimed the lives of six times as many people as the Rwandan genocide.”

Paul Rusesabagina

It’s worth reading the whole article. In it he talks about how Paul Rusesabagina, a hero during the genocide, now believes: “The British taxpayer is financing a proxy war. We need justice, not aid.”

The problem isn’t just money given to governments we have every reason to expect might abuse it. Pakistan is another example of that and currently led by a man known as “Mr. 10 Percent”, as he has been so good at getting kickbacks in government deals.

The biggest recipient of British aid is India, to the tune of £334 million in 2009 (Statistics in International Development, Table 10: Top Twenty Recipients UK Net Bilateral ODA 2007-2009). It’s an impressive amount of money but pretty trivial for a developing economic powerhouse. Total Expenditure in India’s Union Budget for 2011-12 is 12.6 trillion rupees according to the Times of India. That’s about £172 billion and means all of our development assistance to India is worth about 0.2 per cent of their government’s budget. In other words, if they wanted to fund any of the items we spend money on, they could. It would cost about a third of the budget they currently allocate to their space programme.

Huge amounts of money are spent through charities like Oxfam which waste big chunks of it. Last time we looked at the figures systematically, we reported that in 2007-08 they received nearly £16 million and over a third of their budget went on non-project expenditure. That includes things like adverts on the London Underground lecturing us about climate change. I debated international spending with a representative of the charity recently, which you can listen to below:

None of these problems, and I’ve only given the briefest summary here, are going to be helped by tidal waves of new money. With lots of cash they need to get out of the door, it will be that bit harder for the government to insist that only reputable, robust and efficient programmes receive funding. Freezing the budget – not even cutting it – would mean development received the same kind of deal science spending has and would save taxpayers here £3.7 billion a year by 2014-15. That seems a pretty moderate policy given the problems in the aid budget.

There was a time at the beginning of the year when I thought the drought in non-jobs was going to last. With councils having to tighten their belts, it was a reasonable thought, if not rather optimistic. Unfortunately, the drought did not last.

A supporter has alerted me that East Sussex County Council has been looking for a new Assistant Chief Executive, paying £92,230. The job advert expired on 15 April, so it safe to assume this post will have been filled. What ESCC has done is delete a director’s job and then advertise for someone else on a similar high salary; all part of its restructuring.  No doubt the director will have been paid-off, with the usual redundancy and pension top-up costs involved. What sense does it make to then recruit another senior officer? This is another example of a council trying to spin the fact it’s reducing costs, when the reality is the savings are nowhere near as large as it would have us believe.

The non-job this week is in the London Borough of Hillingdon, which is advertising for an Internal Communications Officer. As one of our supporters said to us:

Whenever I’ve needed to communicate with a colleague, I’ve spoken to them or sent them an email. It’s old fashioned, but it works! I’m not sure what an internal communications officer would do all day! Work on a staff newsletter?

To enlighten us more, here’s what the job description says:

Ensuring our staff are well-informed and feel engaged, you will be a critical part of the council’s award-winning communications team. Cited as model of best practice for employee engagement, you will develop the role by delivering effective internal communications and staff engagement strategies, using a range of existing and new channels.Whether your background is in the private or the public sector, this is an ideal opportunity to use your skills to maximum effect during a period of great change in the public sector.

When private companies are looking to bring down costs, this is the sort of job that goes out of the window. There are enough managers already in councils across the country. Communicating information can easily be done by those managers. The council will already have a communications team who should be able to handle any bulletins that go out on a periodic basis. Hiring someone else is a luxury we can’t afford.

Do you remember the Future Shape Programme Manager from North East Lincolnshire Council? If you haven’t heard about this non-job or would like reminding, take a look at this clip.
 

Many councils around the country have been following suit. I constantly see vacancies for change managers, and have highlighted many of them. Now Walsall Council is doing the same. This council is looking for a Smarter Workplaces Programme Manager – a nice variation on the same theme.

I wonder how long it took someone to think it up? Or was it a group decision, after senior officers went for an away day, thrashing out ideas they felt they couldn’t do in the office? Never mind, I’m sure Walsall Council will have a similar excuse as other councils have for employing someone on £66,067-£74,799.  Here’s the job description.

Walsall Council’s Smarter Workplace programme will deliver significant savings and cultural change through the modernisation of the council’s workplace and the implementation of the new council operating model. The programme manager will provide visionary and inspirational change leadership. Reporting to the Executive Director for Regeneration (the Senior Responsible Officer for the Smarter Workplaces Programme) you will lead, champion and deliver the Smarter Workplace strategy and proactively monitor its overall progress and ensure successful delivery.

I wish I had a pound for every time a council has said if it didn’t pay large salaries to senior staff, they would go elsewhere. We are told they are so valuable; have great multitasking skills; are fantastic organisers; and deliver low cost, efficient services. If this is so, why does Walsall Council need a Smarter Workplaces Programme Manager? Or is it trying to pull the wool over our eyes?

If you are a resident of Walsall, and would like to know why your council is spending £75K on this post, why not write to your councillor? You can also write a letter to your local newspaper. Do let me know what you response you get, and I will highlight it for the benefit of all our supporters.

We have long said Political Advisers are non-jobs. Now it seems one of them agrees with us. This is from someone’s Twitter profile, giving details of their job description:

Labour Political Adviser. It is an unnecessary role, proven by the fact that many councils operate perfectly well without them.

To save their blushes, I am not going to name this person, but I assume they are trying to be sarcastic – perhaps even witty – as they quote from our report last year. Of course, the truth is many councils do operate perfectly well without political advisers. It’s a warning to those who tweet. You never know who’s watching, and they may not always be as kind as us and protect your anonymity!

Every person I speak to who works on the frontline in the NHS repeat the same phrases. “If you want to find waste, look no further than here.” “There would be more money for patient care if it wasn’t for the excessive number of managers.”

During last year’s general election campaign, Nick Clegg commented that there were the same number of managers in the NHS as there were beds. I have long thought the NHS is in danger of collapsing under the weight of its own bureaucracy.

Here is an example. This job is advertised on the website www.jobs.nhs.uk. Brent Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT) is looking for an Improvement Manager.

People from different cultures and backgrounds make Brent’s community thriving and exciting, and our staff reflect and enjoy this diversity. Here at NHS Brent / Brent Community Services it is our job to meet the healthcare needs of this vibrant area of NW London. If you want to join our team in delivering a more responsive and effective health service in Brent, we want to hear from you.

This role is part of Delivering Management costs across North West London for the Brent and Harrow sub-cluster. The role is in a new team working with GPs in Brent.

Please note that the job description for this role is a generic to all band 8a roles in the North West London Cluster, in addition to the job description candidates should make reference to the additional role specification. Applications should indicate candidates’ skills, knowledge and qualifications required on both of these documents.

So at a time when the government is reining in spending, Brent PCT creates a new team. I am not an expert on what all these managers do, but those who work in the NHS tell me many of them either don’t understand the jobs of those they are managing, or are simply not needed. I think the job of  Performance Manager falls into the latter category. Surely there are enough managers already and the staff understand their jobs?

Staying in Brent, the council is looking for a Chief Information Officer, paying a very handsome £91,869 – £108,084 a year. Here is an extract from the job advert:

In the spring of 2013 our new community focused Civic Centre will open in Wembley. Colleagues working for the council, local residents, businesses and voluntary groups will be dependent on you to deliver a state-of-the-art IT environment.

The efficient use of information and technology is critical to the council working more efficiently and you must be someone who can develop and sell their ideas and who can deliver major projects on time and to budget. The clock is already counting down. Are you the person we are seeking?

Reporting to the Director of Finance and Corporate Services, this is an exciting opportunity to lead what is acknowledged to be one of the most innovative IT teams in local government.We’ve already implemented a modern low cost IT platform but there is still much to do.

So there we have it.  A new community focused Civic Centre; an information team delivering low cost solutions. All must be well in Brent. When you look at the budget the council passed two months ago, it appears not. Cuts to early year’s education and libraries, to name but two, yet the council can still afford swanky new buildings, and pay a six-figure salary for a Chief Communications Officer. Once again we have a council not focusing on delivering core services. Instead, it would rather deal in grandiose schemes and jobs.

Redbridge Borough Council is looking for a Carbon Reduction Officer, paying between £15-£19.62 per hour. As we highlighted in our report last year, it is possible for councils to reduce their energy consumption without resorting to employing new staff. Perhaps this is something Redbridge council should be doing before spending more taxpayers’ money?

Staying in London, Camden Borough Council is looking for a Project Coordinator (Healing Histories). Here is part of the job description:

This is an exciting role where you will be supporting the School Improvement Service within our Children’s School’s and Families directorate, and manage the development, implementation, performance and delivery of the ‘Healing Histories’ Project.

Healing Histories will interpret the rich history of herbal medicine by engaging children, young people and the local community in a unique and innovative learning project. Participants will be involved in research, design and the planting of a physic garden. They will produce a Healing Histories Trail and learn to become expert debaters on the subject.

This is the same council that, along with Lambeth, wasted money advertising that the government had cut its grant money so was therefore forced to cut services. I am not passing any judgement on herbal medicine; I’ll leave it up to you to make your own minds up on that issue. All I will say is, if Camden really is being forced to cut services, is paying someone to do this job really the best use of its resources?

Less whinging, more action

The winner this week though is Nottingham City Council who are looking or a new Head of Quality and Efficiency Services. This is the only council in the country that has refused to publish spending above £500. The leader of the council is being investigated for alleged misuse of taxpayers’ money in the run-up to the elections. Hardly a record to be proud of, but if the council is committed to getting the best deal for taxpayers why isn’t it being open and transparent? It’s all well and good creating new departments and new jobs trying to give the impression it is trying to save money, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating. This council’s leadership is more inclined to spend our money on cheap political shots like the one pictured and spend its time arguing with Eric Pickles, rather than showing us it cares about quality and efficiency. Until it becomes transparent, can we believe anything it says?

The Daily Telegraph reports that the soon to be abolished Audit Commission spent £20,000 on luxury good and services on official Visa cards paid for by taxpayers. Executives enjoyed £600 dinners at L’Escargot and Coq d’Argent restaurants, spent £1,300 on flowers and splashed out on doughnuts, Thorntons chocolates and HMV goodies. The details, reminiscent of famously extravagant spending sprees by celebrities such as Elton John, were released by Conservative MP Eric Ollerenshaw.

Don't go spending my cash...

It has also emerged that the government might instigate an inquiry to investigate the Audit Commission’s apparently spendthrift habits and could order officials to repay squandered money. While the details may certainly raise eyebrows, they might not surprise those who have been watching the spending watchdog. In March the TaxPayers’ Alliance welcomed moves to abolish the quango in part because its running costs are too high. TPA Director Matthew Sinclair also appeared before the Communities and Local Government Select Committee to discuss the abolition of the Audit Commission back in March.

It’s these kinds of stories that show just how out of step with reality the Audit Commission became over the years.

But this story raises further issues. With 140,000 such taxpayer-funded Visa cards in circulation across the public sector spending a total of £1,000,000,000 per year who knows how much is being frittered away elsewhere? Not the Government, if Top Shop boss Sir Philip Green’s review of efficiency in government is anything to go by. He concluded that spending on the cards “is not monitored”.

We welcome the government’s moves towards transparency on spending taxpayers’ money, but this shows more is needed and spending on cards should be itemised and published. The secrecy of publishing only total bills for credit cards is not acceptable. Taxpayers deserve full transparency when officials and politicians spend their money.

The public finances are in a mess, so you’d be forgiven for thinking all councils were looking at reducing their spending. And many are, no doubt. To help the process, you’d have thought other groups like unions would be helping to suggest areas of spending to cut back in order to protect vital frontline services and their members. But that’s wishful thinking. Unison, Unite and GMB have sent a joint email around to councillors asking them to agree to a range of measures that will actually damage their members’ interests in the long run.

In their email they say:

“Across the UK, sick leave, holiday pay, car allowances, redundancy and unsocial hours payments – already the lowest in the public sector – are also under attack. While petrol prices soar, the Local Government Employers have refused to carry out the annual review of car allowances. Many of our members can no longer afford to use their cars for work. Others are finding themselves without occupational sick pay for up to six months of illness. Those who work hard at night or at weekends to provide your council’s services are being forced to do so on flat rates – without any recognition of the disruption to their family lives or sleep!”

Since releasing our report last week on council mileage allowances, I have been contacted by many councils who say they are lowering their rates to bring them in line with the 45p

Are union bosses living on another planet?

recommended by the taxman. Clearly they regard this as an easy saving to make. But the letter signed by the unions appears to be calling for an increase to the current agreed rate of 65p per mile. A rate that far exceeds the cost of motoring, as our report outlined. Taxpayers shouldn’t be footing this bill when many of them can themselves only claim up to the 45p tax-free rate, and very often below this.

Furthermore the email not only calls for an end to the public sector pay freeze, but an increase over the next two years, a completely unrealistic demand. Considering the fragility of the country’s finances and the financial settlement councils are dealing with, the unions don’t seem to be living in the real world.

Our Director Matthew Sinclair has more thoughts on this, as you may have seen in the Daily Mail:

“Although the big unions defend so many unreasonable perks, taxpayers will still be shocked that they are still trying to look after gold-plated mileage payments and secure fresh hikes in their pay. The pay freeze in place in the public sector is vital to get a handle on the deficit. It is utterly irresponsible for the unions to be putting this kind of pressure on councillors as the public sector needs to tighten its belt, like the private sector has, after years of excess. Times may be hard but wages in the public sector outstrip those in the private sector, so it’s disingenuous for unions to try and plead poverty on behalf of their members. To even think of increasing mileage payments, instead of cutting them to 45 pence a mile or less, betrays a mindset completely out of touch with reality. The unions need to be more reasonable or the end result will be more of their members out of work and more of British taxpayers’ money spent paying the interest on a bloated national debt.”

Tourism is big business in the UK. With the weather set fair for the next week, those in the leisure and hospitality business will be looking forward to a profitable Easter weekend, and hoping for the same on the weekend of the Royal Wedding. Naturally, all places in the country wish to promote what they have to offer.

In the South East, the main tourist board is Visit South East England, which aims to promote the counties of Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Hampshire, Surrey, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Buckinghamshire. This is partly paid for by public money. But it doesn’t end there. Take Surrey as an example. It has its own tourist board – Visit Surrey. One of the aims of this organisation is ‘to co-ordinate Surrey-wide tourism activity, discourage duplication and seek economies of scale.’ One would think they were duplicating the activities of Visit South East England, but once again it doesn’t end there. There are eleven district and borough councils in Surrey, and some of them also have their own tourist boards, such as Visit Leatherhead, which is partly sponsored by Mole Valley District Council.

With all this going on, I was surprised to read Surrey County Council is looking for a Tourism and Culture Legacy Officer. The advert states:

‘This is a newly created role, within a recently restructured service. You will be required to develop new ways of working, create an understanding within the tourism and culture sectors of the significance of the opportunities available.’

Perhaps it’s just me, but why with all the money currently spent on tourism and the number of staff involved, does Surrey County Council need to create a new job? Surely all the existing tourist boards will be busy promoting events such as the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the 2012 Olympic Games? Isn’t it their job? It’s not as if they haven’t had sufficient notice, although how this new member of staff is going to help promote Surrey by using the Royal Wedding when they will not be in post until well after the event, I don’t know.

Perhaps someone from the council would like to explain all of this and justify to council taxpayers why it is essential to create new jobs, and spend more money, when everyone else is scaling back?

Would you like to be paid to have fun? This is not me asking, rather Bracknell Forest Council who are advertising for a Support Play Ranger. According to the advert:

Bracknell Forest Council delivers an exciting Play Ranger Project that offers free open access play opportunities to children and young people in play areas, open spaces and in schools across the Borough. As a Support Play Ranger you will work alongside our Lead Ranger to deliver this service, while raising the profile of play through positive role modelling and by example.

The job is temporary until February 2012, with potential to extend dependent on funding. At a time when councils and government are reducing funding, isn’t this something that should go? Children will still have access to play areas whether there is a play ranger present or not, and they can still kick a football around in the aforementioned open spaces and playing fields. At £14,400 – £17,500, the salary isn’t high, but this cannot be described as an essential job.

On Monday, Tim Newark told us how Somerset Waste Partnership is going to charge an entry fee of between £1.20 – £2 for every visit to a recycling dump. We were promptly contacted by the Senior Communications Officer to inform us that this figure was wrong. He said:

14 Recycling Centres in Somerset are free to enter. Four additional Community Recycling Centres have entry fees.

The entry fees were suggested by local people and their representatives as an alternative to closing the four sites after a £1.9million funding reduction over two years from Somerset County Council.

As Tim said though:

To get around the statutory prohibition on such charges, they have re-designated the recycling centres as ‘non-statutory (discretionary) sites’ to be termed ‘Community Recycling Sites’.

Another example of taxation through the back door!

The existence of a Senior Communications Officer suggests there are more communications officers. How many are there and what are they trying to communicate? We know when our bins are due to be emptied.We know what we can and cannot recycle. We know what is supposed to be placed in which bin but thankfully, if we make an error, the bin police will soon be a thing of the past. We know where our recycling centres are. All we have to do is check on the Internet or look in the phone book to find out if we don’t.

Somerset Waste Partnership’s website states you can sign-up to a bi-monthly e-mail news bulletin. I don’t have or need an e-bulletin where I live and, amazingly, I still manage to put my bins out on the correct day. Garden waste goes into a brown bin; all other recycling waste goes into a blue bin; and the rest goes into a black bin, so it’s not too difficult to work out what to do. In Somerset, you have to sort your waste into many different boxes for kerbside collection, so maybe if the system was easier, there wouldn’t be a need for an e-bulletin?

Somerset Waste is answerable to a committee of councillors covering the various authorities it acts for. This is called the Somerset Waste Board. Any queries about its services could be easily dealt with by existing council call centres. If  this mini-Quango wants to save some cash, instead of charging people to dump their rubbish, why not trim down the communications team, starting with the Senior Communication Officer? I’m sure residents could easily live without him!

Those who have seen the film ‘Groundhog Day’ will have an insight into what it’s like writing this weekly feature. Another week passes by, yet the same councils and the same recruitment agency keep popping up.

Once again Morgan Hunt is advertising for a £200-£300 a day interim job, and once again we haven’t a clue who the employer is, and after you’ve read the job description, you won’t even know exactly what the job is!

Morgan Hunt’s client, a Healthcare Provider based in the South West, is currently looking to recruit a Programme Manager to develop and implement a robust project management framework for all the strategic redesign projects being undertaken in the Trust, ensuring that the patient is central to any redesign.

As Programme Manager, you will have the opportunity to be responsible for the development of clear project management policies, procedures, plans, tools and documentation to support the implementation of the Strategic Redesign Programme.

Key responsibilities include:

- Providing advice and support to the Project Managers to ensure that they have appropriate plans in place to successfully deliver their milestone outcome
- Ensuring there is effective supervision, performance monitoring and management of the Programme, to ensure successful delivery of the projects within the agreed timescales and that the Programme and Projects are regularly evaluated to measure for impact
- Working with the Communications Department to ensure effective communication channels so that all key stakeholders are fully aware of the progress of the Strategic Redesign Programme

The successful candidate for the role of Programme Manager should have the following:

- Demonstrable working experience of project management/co-ordination
- Experience of successfully leading and managing a (team of project managers) project responsible for projects from £100k to £10m in value
- Excellent analytical skills to develop, read and interpret complex information
- Strong leadership and project management skills

So there we have it. This job may well be paying an appropriate going rate. If we knew which trust it was, and quite what the projects were, we would be in a better position to find out. Unfortunately, we don’t, and it is very likely we never will.

The old faithful, Surrey County Council, is continuing to expand its change programme. It is now looking for a Senior Performance and Research Manager (Intelligence) on £54,085. This is to add to the Performance Manager, Performance Officer, Intelligence Officer, Change Officer, and Senior Change Manager; and they are the ones we know about. At this rate there are going to me more people employed in change and performance than there are delivering front line services!

The winner this week is another old chestnut too. We highlighted how many political analysts councils employ in a report last year. Now – thanks to a supporter – we have found out the West Midlands Fire Service employs a Political Analyst and Researcher. I issued a Freedom of Information Request to the fire service asking what the salary is, including any bonuses, how long as he been employed by the authority and how long this post has been in existence. Unsurprisingly, his salary was not revealed as it is below £58,200 – the senior civil service minimum pay band. He has been in post since September 2009.

Why does the fire service need a Political Analyst? Surely it is not beyond the wit of the Chief Fire Officer to keep himself up-to-date of any political changes? According to its website, the Fire Authority is made-up of 27 elected councillors, so they are paid to keep abreast of political changes. The public want the fire service to do what it says on the tin. That’s what we pay our taxes for.

On 2 March, my non-job of the week was an Interim Head of Parking in an unnamed London borough, paying £500-600 a day. Who said lightning doesn’t strike twice? I don’t know how I managed to miss this advert from The Guardian which was posted on 8 March, and although the salary is lower, once again we have a London council paying over the odds for a parking manager, and hiding their identity through recruitment consultants, Morgan Hunt.

This unnamed borough council is looking for a Parking Operations Manager. It’s for a fixed term contract, and the anonymous council is willing to pay £40-50 an hour! Based on a 40 hour working week, that’s anywhere between £83-104K per annum. Before anyone gets back to me and accuses me of getting my figures wrong, I understand they may not be entitled to paid annual leave (as the advert doesn’t state anything about this), and I also understand this person will have to pay their own private pension contributions, although when you are earning £50 per hour, you can easily afford it.

Apart from the egregious salary, what really annoys me is once again we have another council trying to hide big salaries by using a recruitment consultant. They know it is unpopular, so instead go behind residents’ backs.

We also have a flurry of other dubious jobs this week. Once again from The Guardian, I’ve discovered the European Union is advertising Public Sector Jobs in Europe. It’s very rare I agree with the EU on anything, but I agree with them on this:

The European Union institutions make a measurable difference every day to the lives of 500 million people in 27 member states.

It all depends on whether you think the measurable difference is good or bad!

Wyre Borough Council is looking for a Transformation Manager on £42,843-£46,750, and Northamptonshire County Council is looking for a Business Transformation Project Manager on £40,741-£45,990.

Considering the new budgets councils have just voted through will start to take effect from 1 April, why these councils find a need to create more jobs baffles me. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, until the penny drops. Both these councils have a well remunerated chief executive, numerous directors, heads of departments, and other managers. Transforming services, improving performance and saving taxpayers’ money is what they should be doing already, but just like North East Lincolnshire Council and Surrey County Council, they would rather spend more cash thinking up new job titles as an excuse for their own poor performance in the past.