Indeed, the system for awarding these bonuses seems far from transparent. For example, a near identical payment made last year to retiring Tayside Chief Constable John Vine was considered at a behind closed doors meeting of a Police Joint Board sub-committee, with the board convenor saying: "It is absolutely essential to have these things discussed in private as they involve financial matters relating to individuals and you can’t have that played out in public." But the salaries of senior police officers are a matter of public record, so why the secrecy regarding the bonus? Indeed, the Courier report said that neither Mr Vine nor Mr Mathieson - who received a £12,600 bonus as the then deputy chief constable - objected to the payment information being released.
Perhaps the opaqueness relates more to the methodology employed in quantifying the bonus - in both years the maximum allowable was awarded under the relevant guidelines drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers - which seems to rely to a large extent on an assessment by HM Inspector of Constabulary. This year HMIC described Mr Mathieson's performance as "exceptional" and that he "provided ample and convincing evidence of having exceeded in good measure the majority of agreed [with the Tayside Police Joint Board] objectives".
Quite what these criteria amount to isn't entirely clear, but perhaps some indication was provided by reports a couple of weeks earlier relating to "big falls" in Tayside crime:
Mr Mathieson said, “These figures represent the lowest crime reported within the Tayside Police area for at least a decade and our best ever detection figures. Our road casualty figures are the lowest ever on record and we are targeting and arresting considerably more drug offenders.”Which begs numerous questions. How are the lower road casualty figures attributed to policing as opposed to factors like roads engineering, advances in medicine and car safety features such as ABS and airbags? How is the arrest of more drug offenders reconciled with Mr Mathieson's 2008 claim that "we have more drug deaths and overdoses, more people are becoming addicted, drugs are freely available and they are cheaper than alcohol", while at the same time this year as claiming credit for arresting more drug offenders he said that drugs was a problem that the Tayside force "could never solve".
Break-ins to homes across the region were reduced by a fifth, from 911 to 725, and the detection rate was improved by 3.8%, although it remains under one in three. There were also substantial reductions in car crime and vandalism and corresponding increases in cases cleared up.
To what extent are reductions in car crime due to things like advances in car security such as alarms and immobilisers? As for vandalism, it's surely fanciful to assume that reported figures show anything like the real picture, thus to that extent the statistics are far from definitive, and perhaps instructive is a more recent claim by a Dundee councillor that vandalism is "ruining our city", adding, "You can hardly drive a hundred yards without seeing it. It's costing the city a fortune."
Of course, these apparent conundrums and contradictions are all ignored in favour of the political-bureacratic imperative to convey whatever message suits the particular purpose at hand, whether it be the self-serving portrayal of statistics and performance, the backslapping and bonhomie that passes for democratic scrutiny and accountability, or a display of civic concern to impress voters.
However, the councillors awarding the chief constable his bonus did express some misgivings about the system, which is laid down by central government, saying "it is something we have to live with", it is "not our choice", Mr Mathieson himself "would prefer not to have a bonus system" and "I'm not convinced the chief constable is motivated by the bonus".
But they gave him the bonus anyway, and Mr Mathieson took it.
5 comments:
Without seeing the figures, I can't work up too much steam about the payment of relocation expenses.
As a former Head of Personnel in
both the public and private sectors, I have always been sceptical about bonuses not least since I doubt the nature of incentive once they become an expectation. The nonsensical nature of public sector performance bonuses is therefore a different matter which does need tackled. These seem to be payable when the recipient has simply done the job that they're paid for - in the case of the police reducing crime. On this basis as I assume that part of the Chief Constable's remit is to reduce crime in the patch, I cannot understand how an incentive to do the job can be justified in logic or equity. the same must also apply to the civil service.
If the rate ofr the job is too low (which I doubt) then it should be reviewed and increased. Higher pay should not be available through a backdoor spurious nod and wink system.
There may well be issues with the system of payments but personally I consider Stephen House to be worth every single penny paid to him.
It is not simply about the reduction in crime, he has brought about significant improvements in every area.
Can't comment about Tayside police, but Stephen House would get my vote any day.
Richard T, yes, presumably the bonus system is predicated on the crude premise that a bonus system will incentivise the CC to reduce crime further than he/she would otherwise, but this raises a whole series of issues relating to stats and causation etc, which would require an in-depth examination to tease out.
But there seems to be a common purpose between the police and the regulatory functions to portray everything in a positive light, and to that extent the bigger the bonus, the more that all involved bask in the reflected glory.
Indy, but if you listen to councillors and politicians of all parties then they'll say much the same about Tayside, but they would say that, wouldn't they?
Richard T:
"If the rate ofr the job is too low (which I doubt) then it should be reviewed and increased. Higher pay should not be available through a backdoor spurious nod and wink system."
Couldn't agree more, and indeed to a large extent that's a similar point to the arguments made in my post and in subsequent comments the other day about the 'arms-length' bodies set up by councils to provide public services, etc.
Post a Comment