Durendal you said,
Philip Ozouf on the talk back problem said the problem of departmental spending was going to be solved by all the departmental Finance Directors reporting to a new States Head of Finance.
Rationale is that costs will be saved whereas I can only see extra expense!
You are right, but there is a method in this madness. I have no idea why the chairman or in the States public sector the Chief Executive who is on 250K a year is allowed to run a department with figures that are basically a mess as reported by big Chris Swinson, Sarah Ferguson Scrutiny and PAC.
What seems to happen that as the Chief Exec. is not held responcible then someone has to be. A bookeeper as you suggest would not be qualified enough. It is my understanding (I may be wrong ) that Sarah Ferguson and her committee want the treasurer Ian Black, and his ( policeman) finance officers to be installed in every department. Then if an overspend or any dodgy swaping of budgets occur then they will be held fully responcible. As the Finance officer is a fully qualified accountant he / she cannot claim ignorance.
In a private company the chairman / owner would loose profits from his company (his pocket) to fund a finance director. I wonder if the Chief Executive in the public sector will suffer such losses from their paypacket. I notice upon reading your quote again that we are to have a new head of finance. I would hope budgets will not be increased to cover these new staff. What does Ian Black do exactly ? and as he is a clever and very qualified man why do we need a new head of finance ?
Boatyboy.
