205
Date:
28.11.86.
Time:
8.30
-
12.30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Reporter: PMO
permitted to exceed their establishment but additional Inspectorate and rank and file were drafted into the Section to undertake these
new duties. I don't dispute that more police staff than were necessary were from time to time attached to this Section D but this over-staffing was compounded by Force Welfare requirements to find clerical duties for officers male and female who for medical reasons could not be permitted to undertake the full range of street duties. This included some pregnant women police officers attached to the Section prior to their confinement. In April 1986, the Director of Audit was asked to lend his support to yet another request for an Organisation and Methods study as it was clear that we could not reconcile our differences in respect of the way the
correct staffing level should be arrived at. We maintain that the strict application of the 1981 formula was incorrect as it was not viable for calculating staff requirements having been introduced in a transitional period as described. Fortunately, on this occasion the request was granted and that report has been published.
It is interesting to note that the report recommends
the staffing level of 31 and that figure is still open to negotiation
between us. I think it is fair to say that we would not expect any
increases of more than one or two from that figure. The latest
report confirms the strength of the Inspectorate in the Section, 23 accepts the new duties, identified in respect of complaints, and 24 provides for rank and file officers where nore existed in the 1981
report. The initial recommendations provide for a staffing level of ten above that calculated by the Director of Audit in paragraph 104
of his report.
25
26
27
222223
28
Further this is based on the current workload of Section D
29 which is beneath that applied in 1985. As I have said, I accept
a degree of over-staffing but as I have explained part of this
30
31 was due to Force Welfare requests. Setting that aside, the cost
32
33
34
of the surplus staff in 1985 was considerably beneath the $2.5
million alleged, more in the order of $1.2 million of which I have
a breakdown. It is possible this figure could be further reduced,
35 once the negotiations on the latest Organisation and Methods survey
has been completed.
36
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.