Allowancegate : They are all at it now !!!!

What happens in an organisation when the people at the top are discredited, there is a captive market for the revenue and the people who make the decisions have no principles whatsoever. Something like this maybe?

http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/8316297.Acting_deputy_chief_executive_paid_more_than___15k_a_month/

It seems that Mr Andrew Travers, an acting deputy chief executive of Barnet Council is receiving £15,000 a month through a shell company. A statement from Barnet Council said: 

“The use of staff on a contractual basis gives the council flexibility when planning for the future. This specific contract was put in place after a rigorous recruitment process failed to find a suitable candidate. When filling posts in this way, the council makes sure that contracts stay within the existing budget for the post."

His job? Mr Travers has been leading on recruiting new financial directors to the council, with three jobs worth nearly £200,000 between them. From what I can see, Barnet Council is having a "trough Fest" at the top, whilst the people delivering care on the front line are being chopped mercilessly. One thing is clear. If Mr Travers had been a permanent employee, it would cost us just as much, as it's within existing budgets for the post.

Earlier this week, I detailed how only people with "Critical Care Needs" are receiving Council care and "reviewing managers" are scrutinising all budgets.

Are they scrutinising the salaries of these executives. Mr AT Ravers is receiving £180,000 per annum - I wonder how many incontinent bums you can wipe for that. I wonder how many baths for the bedridden you can buy. I wonder how many meals on wheels you can provide. I wonder how many home visits for vulnerable children you can buy.

In a Council where the Leaders have just voted themselves a big rise, because they are worth it, is it any wonder that when Mr Travers says he's worth it as well they all agree. I'm rather interested why Mr Travers doesn't want to be a permanent employee of Barnet Council. Maybe it's because by using a shell company, he pays less tax, earning even more money. Maybe it's because he doesn't think a job at Barnet Council will be an interesting and fulfilling career. Or maybe it's simpler, maybe he just doesn't want "Executive at Barnet Council" on his CV. To be quite honest, who can blame him? Could it be that the reason Barnet Council can't attract a permanent employee for the role, despite a salary most of us can only dream of, is because it really is a basket case Council which is the kiss of death on your CV if you want a long term career. How much would you have to earn to make it worth working for the likes of Brian Coleman?