As a reward for all his sterling work in Christchurch—including barring businessmen’s access to their own property, evicting people from their own homes, shutting down the CBD while simultaneously closing off the city limits, and (as a consequence) making sure new homes are beyond the price of those who need to buy them—in other words, for pretty much everything his mailed fist has done since the earthquake to make the city worse, to do to the city and its spirit what the earthquake couldn’t, plus all his acts of self- aggrandisement in “running” a dysfunctional council, and mayoral aggrandisement in promoting Mr Parker—for these achievements and more council “Chief Executive Officer” (sic) Tony Marryatt has rewarded himself has been rewarded with a pay rise equal to the size to which the Grand Chancellor used to tower over his city.
Now, why did I say “sic’ after the use of his officially appointed title? Let Joe Bennett explain:
The sickness, as always, shows up in the language. Mr Marryatt, for example, is known as a CEO. But he is not a CEO. A CEO runs a competitive business that has to earn money. The council is a monopoly that does not have to earn money. It just demands money from ratepayers. So Mr Marryatt's job is merely to oversee the spending of a guaranteed income. Spending is easier than earning.
Mr Marryatt's role used to have the more accurate title of town clerk.
I think we should revive it. It is an honourable title but it stresses that the role is clerical. No-one pays a clerk half a million bucks.
That Clerk Tony’s pay hike is even contemplated in the current environment is reason enough for campaigning and marching against it on 1 February.
8 comments:
Reward in a competitive market is based on risk. None of these so-called CEOs in government agencies need to take any personal or business risk. There has been a profusion of senior management roles in central and local government with the result that the government salary bill nearly tripled during the nine years of the last Labour Government. I have business dealings with many of these people and frankly they wouldn't last 5 minutes in a competitive, international business environment. I agree that it's about time these "CEO" roles were reverted to more fitting remuneration levels and titles.
I agree that it's about time these "CEO" roles were reverted to more fitting remuneration levels and titles.
And if we have to have councils, they should be whittled down to the essentials of only providing the essentials well, at reasonable cost.
Chch Council, with it's General Manager of Regulation and Democracy, (Jeez), was well out of control before the first quake: I've a house in Chch and exactly the same GV house in Marlborough, and my Chch rates were over three times higher. I knew of elderly people leaving Chch and Akaroa because they couldn't afford to live there anymore.
Kiwiwit
If remuneration be based on risk then very few CEO's are worth their paychecks.
They come into established busineses, assume no personal risk, their benefits and salary is guarenteed, even if the comapny should decline steeply during their tenure.
I agree completely that the public sector should not have these positions, but let's be honest, even in the private sector, most CEO's are more James Taggart than Hank Rearden.
In partial defence of Tony Marryatt (TM), all such council CEO's in NZ recieve such absurd sums, yet they get to hide under a rock while doing even less than TM.
What I can't understand is why didn't he say, "pay me the salary increase in 4 years, following a council vote on my performance". If he had done that I think most would think it a reasonable outcome, even if they disagree with the level of salary for such persons.
Under rocks is not a good place to hide at the moment in Chch V :)
@Mark
Yes well, I wonder how disaster planning is going in the rest of NZ, or is it still in the 'she'll be right' basket?
On your point about rates, this is a worldwide phenomenon, councils/municipalities have used the increasing value of property to gather more and more rate revenue. If property prices fall, the rates will have to rise regardless to cover the shortfall.
I would prefer a swiss model, where in return for reduced central govt tax, the local govts have ability to tax generally (rather than burden soley ratepayers) and provide services at the local level (rather than central govt). This would also foster inter-regional competition, so Chch (for example) could reduce business tax/income tax to establish these entrepreneurship zones the Libz speak of.
These dickheads will get away with what they can get away with.
If the people of Christchurch helped themselves to all the expensive stuff in his house they paid for and/or assaulted him with a blunt object we would see less such instances in the future.
Voluntary taxation would sort this!
I'd be writing that after every one of PC's blogs but it would get tiring!
Let every ratepayer decide how well the Council is doing and pay them justly. The current system is madness, can ONLY lead to tyranny and is bound to fail.
The sooner we tear the system down the more we save our children's futures.
Post a Comment