Hard News: How many children with cancer would an editor's salary cure?
151 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Newer→ Last
-
$250 per head? Very reasonable. 94 people sitting on their arse talking vision and values? – a downright disgrace and a red alert of poor leadership. 94 people for f***ks sake!
It is mainly in the public sector these sort of faddish bonding sessions still happening – most corporates got bored with them in 90’s – and hey its not public money there anyway.. And with the rampant public sector growth in backroom staff there are more of these ineffectual fart-up-the-department sessions than before, big and small. Most who attend these sorts of things know what a waste of time they are (I have!). Generally these are called by sociopath-CEO’s who need this sort of event as it is there sole outlet for a social life or ‘personal expression’ (think Rankin here). Stuff all changes back at the coal face. Good leaders don’t do this crap.I’ve recently been at a few annual retreats of senior management in the private sector. Averages : 6 people, less than $250/day for 1 day, concrete actions arising – changes to at least 20% of the business; time spent talking of vision and values <1 minute.
-
Sorry if this offends you, Russell, but if I was a HNZ manager signing off on the proposal for this event, you bet your arse I'd be raising a red flag around the venue.
And I bet that the key factor would have been total cost. Seems to me they got a good deal, especially when you factor in the travel savings.
Teleconferencing definitely has its uses, but there's no replacement for actual facetime. Otherwise, wouldn't Foo Camps be conducted online ?
-
So they should deliberately seek out somewhere that, whilst no cheaper, is notably scuzzier.
Rich: I attended a rather pleasant wedding at the Tongariro Lodge, which was meticulously kept when I was there. My house is "notably scuzzier", but I guess that has more to do with the fact that I've got a staff of one and he's a lazy slattern. I really need to give myself a good beating. :)
Sorry for sounding like a scratched record, but what was achieved here that couldn't have been done as well (if not better) somewhere else, in another way?
-
To put this in context:
According to its last annual report, HNZC manages a portfolio of more than 200,000 properties worth more than $15 billion.
Last year, it banked an operating surplus of $13 million. A more robust story could have asked why that was, and whether the cash could have been spent on accelerating property upgrades.
But that story wouldn't have come served up on a plate. It might, indeed, have required some work.
-
Teleconferencing definitely has its uses, but there's no replacement for actual facetime. Otherwise, wouldn't Foo Camps be conducted online ?
Well, I'll leave that up to the Foo Campers. But when I was a regular attendee at National Party conferences, there's sure no substitute for F2F interfacing when it comes to gossip, intrigue and self-inflicted alcohol poisoning. (There was also the practicalities of holding various elections on the conference floor.) Getting substantive business done? Holding regional Young Nat executive meeting via tele-conference (with agendas and supporting documentation distributed via e-mail) worked fine.
-
Teleconferencing definitely has its uses
Housing NZ do a lot of video conferencing, their 3 National Offices are (were 3 years ago anyway) set up for it & it gets used routinely & widely.
HNZC are by no means a profligate organisation - there's very little racking up of entertainment on corporate credit cards. Very little entertainment in fact.
I do uncharitably wonder where the income that pays for Dot's income related rent comes from - are the government payuing her rent for the last 8 years & next 7 years anyway?
-
Perhaps Dot could kick her 17 and 18 year old "children" out of the nest to get a job and find their own places like the rest of us - then she'd have plenty of room.
-
Rankin was appointed under National when State house rentals were at market values. So. Dot would now be paying about $400 a week under that regime and the amount of rent that $65000 would pay for her is about three Years.
See National is "Better" -
Let's be fair: a HUGE amount of money gets wasted in the public sector. For example, most IT projects cost triple what they would in the private sector.
The extra cost comes from an extended process to buy stuff (in case there is a media beat up) and padding to ensure that, should a mistake be made, the extra cost can be managed within the orginal fee.
The real story here is that this type of pointless beat up always ends up costing the taxpayer more - communications advisors, all-conferences-in-Wellington from now on, the meeting / enquiry that will inevitably be called on the topic... <sigh>
I wish you'd just let them get on with catching villains.
-
Of course APN is not funded by the taxpayer so they can do whatever their shareholders let them do.
When public servants spend our money they have a duty to do so with frugality, prudence and an eye to value.I want to know why they need a conference to discuss 'customer service'. Don't they know how to say please and thank you and how can I help you.
It's not hard.
And I'm sure they've got a rule book as thick as their heads to tell them what to do.Sad to see someone of Street's calibre so sucked in by spin that all she criticised was 'the look'.
Appearance over reality all the way with this Labour crowd.
-
The real story here is that this type of pointless beat up always ends up costing the taxpayer more - communications advisors, all-conferences-in-Wellington from now on, the meeting / enquiry that will inevitably be called on the topic... <sigh>
Quite. Last year, HNZC helped answer 577 Parliamentary questions, many of which will have been exquisitely political in nature. The total cost of ministerial support (including questions and OIA requests) was $2.46 million -- $165,000 over the budget, which was duly increased for the current financial year.
Some wag might wish to tot up the total cost of Phil Heatley's questions for the year.
Here's the Heatley press release everyone got their stories from, BTW.
-
Housing NZ do a lot of video conferencing, their 3 National Offices are (were 3 years ago anyway) set up for it & it gets used routinely & widely.
HNZC are by no means a profligate organisation - there's very little racking up of entertainment on corporate credit cards. Very little entertainment in fact.
I'm always amazed by how tight a leash even relatively senior public servants are on with respect to entertainment expenses. If I'm out of town on business, I can charge food and drink to the extent that IRD will tolerate it. I've been with public servants who can't even buy a drink.
-
Interesting backgound document on Government Accountability to the House
-
I want to know why they need a conference to discuss 'customer service'.
If they are anything like WINZ, then hell yeah!
-
But Russell.... theres good reason for that...
"entertainment expenses" are tax deductible because they are (supposed to be) a cost of your business ingratiating itself with customers and possible customers.... its a form of advertising....
In general, government departments dont have to advertise for customers... I mean, is the head of the IRD buying you a drink going to help persuade you to send more business their way?
-
"Otherwise, wouldn't Foo Camps be conducted online?"
Well, I'll leave that up to the Foo Campers. But when I was a regular attendee at National Party conferences, there's sure no substitute for F2F interfacing when it comes to gossip, intrigue and self-inflicted alcohol poisoning. (There was also the practicalities of holding various elections on the conference floor.) Getting substantive business done? Holding regional Young Nat executive meeting via tele-conference (with agendas and supporting documentation distributed via e-mail) worked fine.
(waves hand) Hi, Foo Camper here. Kiwi Foo is an "unconference". There's no agenda, we don't have deliverables, and anyone caught drafting a mission statement is killed first in the next round of Werewolf. Foo is fun, which teleconferences very definitely are not.
Foo Camps build trust and share information in an extremely informal way. Foo is not a format for achieving consensus or grinding out documents or action plans. I try hard to select the guest list to minimize gossip and intrigue and maximize nerd value. Self-inflicted alcohol poisoning, however, comes with any group with the possible exception of the Temperance Union (though I suspect they're massive P-heads or love group sex with farmyard animals). It's how many New Zealanders gain the confidence to socialize (drinking, I mean, not group sex with animals).
I think Foo Camps are substantive business. Not the daily workhorse keep-the-engine-of-industry-going invoicing, programming, managing type of business. But trust makes business easier and knowledge makes it more efficient.
I refuse to have an opinion about the HNZC meeting. It could have been waste. It could have been productive. To figure out which, you'd need to know the wider brief of the meeting (did those people need to be there, was the subject matter weighty and thorny enough to justify face-to-face rather than teleconference) and the outcomes (did they successfully tackle their problems). After just a week it'd be hard to say whether the outcomes are successful, so I say we lack the information to judge. What I don't like about the Herald piece (and a lot of recent Herald stories) is that it appears to have prejudged--Dot's response was never going to answer whether the meeting was productive.
And, more importantly, the Herald seems uninterested in the bigger picture. If there is widespread waste at HNZC, we need to know! Reporting whether it makes a profit or loss would put the meeting into context. Asking for the last two years of off-site meetings to figure out frequency, cost, and purpose (are we really meeting every year to play with our mission statements?) would put the meeting into context. Asking whether HNZC are winning or losing the battle (more houses being built? waiting lists growing or shrinking compared to employment?) would give us some insight into the performance of HNZC.
But pulling a single incident and holding it up to the light during election silly season gives me the shits. Are we really supposed to base our opinion on a single out-of-context incident? I'm sure I could find individual quotes from John Key and Helen Clark that make them sound like child molesters, psychopaths, and saints. We all fuck up, companies and people. The question is whether it's a trend or an isolated incident. And that's what the Herald has clearly failed to address.
-
I mean, is the head of the IRD buying you a drink going to help persuade you to send more business their way?
I wouldn't say no!
-
Back in the day when I was a foolish delegate, the real understanding was reached over dinner (paid for by the company) & drinks (paid for by the union).
Thinking back some of the company parties were down right hedonistic, ahh the good times.
-
Some wag might wish to tot up the total cost of Phil Heatley's questions for the year.
Indeed, Russell. Even better, why don't we just do away with oral or written questions, repeal the Official Information Act and then do a front page rant about how fraking lazy and thoroughly useless MPs like Heatley are? I don't think basic Parliamentary and public scrutiny, or access to official information is quite the same thing.
And I don't know about you, but I'd quite like some 'wag' to do some digging and name and shame government departments, and Ministers, who would be doing us all a favour if they just complied with the Official Information Act and it's "principle of availability."
-
HNZC helped answer 577 Parliamentary questions, many of which will have been exquisitely political in nature
Is that all? When I was their Information Manager, I'd see 45 PQs cross my desk each month - those were requests for operational stats - waiting lists, vacancy rates et al. Then there were the questions on policy which I usually had no imput into, I'd heva thought they got asked thousands each year.
National - a variety of shadow spokesmen (and Muriel Newman - although hers often weren't answered because they were unanswerable gibberish) would also ask numerous questions which could be asked in one, eg:
1. How many people in the Grey Lynn Neighbourhood unit were on the waitng list at 31 Dec 2001
2. How many people in the Grey Lynn NHU were on the B waiting list
3. Grrey Lynn C waiting List'
4. Grey Lynn D waiting List
5. How many people in the Otahuhu NHU were on the A waiting list...etc etc (42 NHUs).
We'd answer 168 questions with one spreadsheet.
Which is why I think that assessing MPs performances on the number of PQs they ask to be laughable.
-
And I don't know about you, but I'd quite like some 'wag' to do some digging and name and shame government departments, and Ministers, who would be doing us all a favour if they just complied with the Official Information Act and it's "principle of availability."
Well during my tenure HNZC were lauded for their transparency, speed & enthusiasm for answering all the PQs & OIAs they could.
</halo>
-
Indeed, Russell. Even better, why don't we just do away with oral or written questions, repeal the Official Information Act and then do a front page rant about how fraking lazy and thoroughly useless MPs like Heatley are?
I didn't say that. It would be as silly as pretending you're going to ban staff at crown entities from having national meetings.
-
I'm always amazed by how tight a leash even relatively senior public servants are on with respect to entertainment expenses. If I'm out of town on business, I can charge food and drink to the extent that IRD will tolerate it. I've been with public servants who can't even buy a drink.
I dunno about other places, but my work is very cautious about fringe benefit tax.
If a colleague loses a member of their family, someone has to go around and collect money from everyone to get them flowers.
If the department was to buy the flowers straight, fringe benefit tax would apply and the person would be taxed (as well as losing a family member).
Often the rule in relation to entertainment expenses seems to be - work will pay for your guest from out of town, but you have to cover your own.
-
Some wag might wish to tot up the total cost of Phil Heatley's questions for the year.
They might want to, but it would be a beat up. No-one should have to apologise for the costs of holding government to account. It's a basic part of our constitutional system, and something that needs to be done in order for our democracy to work properly.
(I shudder to think what my OIA requests and the odd Ombudsman's investigation has cost the government, but it is certainly not money wasted).
-
No-one should have to apologise for the costs of holding government to account.
In theory I'd agree, in practice though, and while the majority of MPs (or their staff most likely) are not like this, there are some who ask questions, and ask in such a manner as to create unreasonable amounts of work for the government agencies in answering them.
Sometimes I'd be conviced there was intent to divert us from actual work to answering ridiculous questions for no discernable reason, so that our lack of achievement could be questioned in Parliamant at a later date.
To summarise - I wouldn't mind if time & money wasters were held to account, they cost me & my team a lot of time & the taxpayer quite some money.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.