In today’s stressed economic climate, for the most part the only people who oppose cutting our councils’ staffs are the employees who might lose their jobs.
But to those looking on from the outside, it seems the cuts cannot be draconian enough.
Take the current Napier City Council staff ‘restructuring’ as an example of the challenge faced by all councils.
There, a review of staff levels and responsibilities has been driven firstly by councillors presumably hearing load and clear that ratepayers are appalled at rate increases that have and will continue to be substantial.
But the Council is also factoring in other drivers of change – the likelihood of handing off water infrastructure and services to a new regional entity and the likelihood that some facilities currently owned and operated by NCC itself will be transformed into commercial operations or shed entirely.
So NCC has taken the route of putting its entire staffing arrangements up for a ‘bottom-to-top’ review … an approach guaranteed to ignite the most internal disruption and dismay. Those affected don’t hesitate to take their grievances to the media, casting Council leaders as heartless body choppers. BayBuzz gets some of those complaints and the personal upsets are understandable, as they are whenever jobs are at stake.
Yet at the same time, we get much more comment from the other side – including complaints that the rumoured cuts aren’t nearly substantial enough. The ‘proper’ order of magnitude should be in the range of 300 dismissals says one ex-councillor.
Council leaders are put in a ‘no win’ situation – look cruel and ham-handed or look unresponsive to ratepayers and unwilling to make serious cost reductions.
At NCC, the reductions will be finalised in early June.
At present, it is proposed that 138 existing positions would be disestablished, including 36 current vacancies. At the same time, 94 new positions would be created, presumably positions better reflecting changing future responsibilities the Council will carry. All of this has been shared with staff over past weeks and final feedback will be sought and assessed in the week ahead. And then a final plan will be decided by the Chief Executive, Louise Miller and presented to Councillors.
Under law, NCC is required to invite expressions of interest (EOIs) from current staff for the 94 (or whatever final number) new positions. Those appointments will be skill based. If the new roles cannot be filled by impacted staff, then Council would initiate normal external recruitment processes.
So to do the math, under the restructure plan as it stands today, about 44 roles will go (138 disestablished minus 94 new positions). And in the very unlikely situation that none of the employees currently in disestablished roles proved qualified for new positions (or were not interested), then 102 individuals would be let go (138 disestablished minus 36 vacancies).
Arguably, additional turnover might occur if some current employees, not now serving in disestablished roles, simply decide they would prefer to sell their services elsewhere. Over the years, HB has seen plenty of musical chairs as staff ‘switch sides’ across councils during such reorganisations.
Bottomline: the NCC staff reduction will be closer to four dozen than 100. NCC’s full-time staff was 532 as June 2024 (or 669 including all full-time equivalents).
It looks like a responsible staffing review has been undertaken that will yield a staff reduction in the 6%-8% range. As the plan stands, NCC estimates it would save $3 million per year.
Will this satisfy Napier ratepayers? In a couple of weeks, those who insist ‘No’ will see the plan fully exposed. Some of those might stand for Council. The ball will be in their court to identify precisely the staff reductions they believe can be undertaken and the service level impacts involved.
Stay tuned.
1. Still ‘moving deck chairs around on the titanic’.
2. Cynical move at self-preservation by current councilors that have been in the role for 3 years yet only implemented the review a few months out from elections.
3. Time to make bold moves such as closing non-essential ‘white elephants’ like the aquarium and Faraday Museum Of Technology and priories funding on essential assets and services.
4. Stop blowing money on new vanity projects like the $1m wasted on a pontoon in Ahuriri for a waka.
Don’t close the Aquarium or Faraday Museum. Run them as trusts.
Stop tearing down perfectly good buildings and squandering money on unnecessary replacements.
There are interesting comments on Napier News about cutting 20% of staff per salary band. That looks extremely good to me, saves a ton more money and cuts the chaff instead of the people who speak out against the wasteful spending or actually do the work, known as ‘the Daves’.
Ratepayers said no to Te Haka, woops I mean Aka, the Waka Berth, Ahuriri Regional Park (check the yes ‘people’ on these, there is a theme here) increased spending on nice-to-haves instead of infrastructure, illegal speed humps, rainbow training, systems that don’t capture the data, increased contractor spending and raising the prices on things people actually use but aren’t maintained correctly. Let alone the things that don’t know about….
‘They’ didn’t listen. As the song says, it’s too late baby now, it’s too late. Looking forward to voting out most of them in October and having a say on Maori wards too, rather than the say being made for us all at our expense!
Congratulations to the Napier city council in reviewing their staffing needs with a focus to being relevant and responsive to its ratepayer core needs as opposed to indulgent expenditure.
A waka reserve was established as a condition of the one of the Ahuriri land sales.
The erection of the west shore bridge compromise access of ocean going waka to the ocean from the waka reserve so areas for waka to berth on the seaward side of the bridge is the least that could be done to honour that historic agreement.