On 2017-10-28, Tony <lizandtony> wrote:

And pay rates to support this. https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/98327954/auckland-council-paying-45-million-for-communications-staff
My background qualifies me to comment on this, it is outrageous regardless of what any review determines. (Reviews are often based on status quo criteria, especially in government or local government).
Cutting it by half should only be the start, some of the organisations mentioned seem to be reasonably staffed (effective communications is very important). but some are clearly over the top.
My local council which receives plenty or criticism for their expenditure

would

be delighted with 10% of this.

Auckland is a big(ish) city and therefore on a per capita basis the $45
million might be in line with other cities. There is no mention of this in
the article.

Nor is a figure given as to what the cost was for greater Auckland when the
had more than one Council.

Just cause a pressure group wants if halved does not mean that the majority
of the rate payers are unhappy with the 45 million dollar cost. What is the price per property per year? Say a milion properties, gives $45 per year.

Okay, I am not saying that it could not be done for less.

Most ratepayers accept the rates and are happy as long as the water flows,
the toilet flushes and there are some roads to drive on.

As Tony says communication needs to be effective other wise you have just wasted the cost of it. No value. So where is the balance point?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: Agency HUB, Dunedin - New Zealand | Fido<>Usenet Gateway (3:770/3)