Wrap defends bonuses for senior staff
Just wondering.
If public money is used for massive comms budgets that inevitably lead to increased public 'responses' (if this can be included in the term 'delivered the vast majority of its objectives' - is there a definition of what these were anywhere?) that in turn generate bonuses from the public purse for those who approved the expenditures in the first place, is there not a slight conflict of interest at work?
At the very least, the system would seem to 'encourage' anything the drives a bonus than what might actually serve our kids' futures on this planet a tad better.
Mind you, I simply can't comprehend any system that includes the concepts of 'bonuses' for public servants.
As it is seldom possible to 'make' anything, if it's based on financial performance the main way to effect 'savings' would seem to be through cuts, which is really not that tricky to do. And can prove less than satisfying to those public being 'served', as evidenced as here.
No comments:
Post a Comment