By Terry Neale Voices
By Terry Neale
IT appears that there is a growing school of thought among some JEP columnists and letter writers that if we want to attract quality candidates to put themselves forward for election to the States, then we must be prepared to pay them more 鈥 perhaps even double the fifty-odd thousand that they currently pocket.
The idea is that by offering a salary that matches the pay currently handed out to the folk who occupy the posh offices with the nice views down at the Waterfront some might be persuaded to wave farewell to the world of big business and turn their hands and expertise to governing the Island instead.
But while it would be wonderful to fill the States Chamber with people who understand a balance sheet when they see one and who are accustomed to organising and getting things done 鈥 on time and on budget 鈥 would splashing the cash really work? The current residents of what Helier Clement used to call 鈥渢he Big House鈥 clearly don鈥檛 think so. Given the chance recently to approve a proposition that would have seen ministers, assistant ministers and Scrutiny panel heads receiving more money than those who take on less responsibility, the majority voted against.
Surely this would never happen in the private sector; department heads pleading with the boss to be paid the same as those for whom they are responsible, the chief executive on the same pay scale as the canteen assistant. All seemingly claiming that, despite a greater workload than some of their colleagues, job satisfaction means far more to them than boosting their bank accounts.
As a former journalist with a double-honours degree in cynicism, I can鈥檛 help feeling that at least some of those who voted down what appeared to be a perfectly sane proposition, did so because they feared that holding on to their seats under such an attractive pay regime may become a little more of a challenge. After all, who would willingly accept the offer of a wage increase if the caveat was that they might have to compete to keep their job against more highly qualified candidates? To paraphrase Lord Mountarat in Gilbert and Sullivan鈥檚 operetta Iolanthe: 鈥淣ow that politicians are to be recruited entirely from persons of intelligence, I really don鈥檛 see what use we are.鈥
Sadly, however, I think that our States Members have missed a lucrative trick. Because I don鈥檛 really believe that playing Lady Bountiful and throwing money around like autumn leaves in the hope of encouraging top business brains to face the electorate would have the desired result. Even if the States Remuneration Board could offer them a comparable salary, in bidding farewell to their plush Waterfront offices, these executives would also be waving goodbye to annual bonuses, profit share, generous pension entitlements, private health schemes, the company BMW complete with central parking space, expense accounts, preferential mortgage rates and all manner of other incentives, including promotions and, eventually, a seat on the board. A lot to give up in return for a job with no more than four years of job security and the likelihood of being on the receiving end of a torrent of online vitriol spewed out by the moronic elements of society.
A recent JEP leader made the point that if you pay peanuts you get monkeys. A fair observation perhaps. But the risk could be that if you merely open a few more packets of Big D, you will end up with the same monkeys grasping ever larger handfuls of nuts.
And yet there may be an alternative solution. With many high-earners opting for early retirement, maybe some could be persuaded to offer up a few years to public service 鈥 enough of them, perhaps, to make a real difference. The bonus for the rest of us is that they wouldn鈥檛 be in it for the money 鈥 so no need to put extra pressure on the exchequer 鈥 and they would have the talent and the courage to initiate beneficial policy without worrying in the slightest about the risk of later rejection by an ungrateful electorate.
Who knows, we may discover that hospitals don鈥檛 need years of interminable discussion and the outlay of multi-millions before they can be built. We may also find that a top-heavy civil service can be trimmed back by politicians who know how to manage staff, overseas consultants can be sent packing back to where they came from and that public assets such as the Fort and La Folie Pub can be transformed into viable enterprises.
Well, it鈥檚 good to have a dream.