In replying to Rule 14 Questions submitted by Deputy David Goy, the States have announced that of the 5,800 people it employs locally, 389 are paid at a rate of £85,000 or more.
Deputy Goy is currently without a place on any Committee, having successfully ran for election for the first time earlier this year.
He’s been a strong back bencher so far this term, using Rule 14 questions to probe at his colleagues in positions of power. His latest set of prods to power came with just two questions.
They were seeking to understand how many employees were pocketing that financial figure of £85k or more, how many were in positions of “management” or “leadership”, and asked for a table to help break down the statistics, including what their title was, and where they worked.
A second summary question asked for the head-count, and the total salary bill.
You can find the full Rule 14 Questions, and the answers provided below.
In their response the States did not provide the requested table, stating that by doing so would be “neither fair nor appropriate” to “publish the salary of employees alongside their job titles and place of work”.
A spokesperson for Policy and Resources went on to state, “To do so would clearly risk identifying staff, which the Committee considers would be an unacceptable course of action for any employer to take. Our position on this aligns with standard employment practices.
“However, the Committee wishes to be as helpful as possible and can confirm that 389 employees from a total of 5,800 across the organisation have an annual full-time equivalent base salary of £85,000 or more.”
P&R go on to say that they are unable to answer many elements of Deputy Goy’s questions, due to the way roles are catagorised.
“The question has asked that roles be classed as “management” or “leadership” and roles which are “not a business-as-usual professional/technical post”. The relevant data is not categorised in this manner, so we cannot provide a breakdown under these headings.”
However they’ve also made clear their intention to speak with Deputy Goy, to better understand the drive behind the questions.
“The Committee has already invited Deputy Goy to meet so that it can better understand his requests for information relating to the public service workforce and extends that invitation again via this response.”
Responding through his own personal website, Deputy Goy suggested that the States shield of “standard employee practices” doesn’t fit the bill, as they’re funded by the taxpayer.
“The States is NOT any “standard employer”. A standard employer is not funded by public money. So the public may not have the right to know how much a private employer pays its senior management.
“On the other hand, the States is largely funded by public money, so the public has every right to know if the States’ senior leaders and management salaries are fair and proportionate. This is crucial for public accountability.”
The backbencher also took issue with the States practicality reasons for not releasing the statistics.
“Moreover, P&R must understand that “not held in that format” is not the same as “not held”. The fact that the data requested must be sorted or filtered does not exempt P&R from disclosure under Rule 14.”
Deputy Goy goes on to say that much is still unknown, and although he appreciates the meeting offer, more Public Questions will be forthcoming, as a written reply for all islanders to see “remains essential”.
“Because the detailed breakdown was withheld, taxpayers still do not know how those 389 posts are spread across departments; what they cost in base salaries; nor what pay-range flexibility exists at the top of the organisation,” said Deputy Goy on his website.
“I have therefore tabled a follow-up Rule 14 question that narrows the request to four anonymised columns only and offers the Committee several practical ways to supply the information without compromising personal privacy. Islanders will be able to judge for themselves whether the management head-count and cost are proportionate to the services delivered.
“P&R invited me to meet and discuss my questions in person. Nevertheless, the answers are sought as much for the public as for myself; they must therefore be readily available to everyone. For that reason, a written reply remains essential.”
More to follow…