SAP - 7 years on

Mr Mustard looks through the over £500 spending lists that Barnet Council publish.

He came across these payments to Garfield Associates Ltd :-

Date paid	Invoice #	Payment £	Daily Rate	Days	Invoice period
05/10/2010	LBB-001	4,000	400	10	6-10 September 2010
					13-17 September 2010
05/10/2010		4,000	400		Credited incorrectly
19/10/2010	LBB-002	4,000	400	10	20-24 September 2010
					27 Sep – 1 Oct 2010
19/10/2010	LBB-003	4,000	400	10	4-8 October 2010
					11-15 October 2010
19/10/2010		-4,000			Debited
01/11/2010	LBB-004	4,000	400	10	18-22 October 2010
					25-29 October 2010
29/11/2010	LBB-005	4,000	400	10	1-5 November 2010
					8-12 November 2010
29/11/2010	LBB-006	4,000	400	10	15-19 November 2010
					22-26 November 2010
07/12/2010	LBB-007	2,500	500	5	29 Nov – 3 Dec 2010
15/12/2010	LBB-008	2,500	500	5	6 Dec - 10 Dec 2010
21/12/2010	LBB-009	2,500	500	5	13 Dec – 17 Dec 2010
18/01/2011	LBB-010	2,500	500	5	20 Dec – 24 Dec 2010
18/01/2011	LBB-011	2,000	500	4	4-7 January 2011
18/01/2011	LBB-012	2,500	500	5	10-14 January 2011
08/02/2011	LBB-013	2,500	500	5	17-21 January 2011
08/02/2011	LBB-014	2,500	500	5	24-28 January 2011
08/03/2011	LBB-015	2,500	500	5	31 Jan – 4 Feb 2011
08/03/2011	LBB-016	2,500	500	5	7 Feb – 11 Feb 2011
08/03/2011		2,500
08/03/2011	LBB-017	2,000	400	4	14 Feb – 18 Feb 2011
10/03/2011	LBB-018	2,000	400	5	21 Feb – 25 Feb 2011
25/03/2011	LBB-019	2,000	400	5	28 Feb-4 March 2011
25/03/2011	LBB-020	2,000	400	5	7 March – 11 March 2011
28/03/2011	LBB-021	2,000	400	5	14 March-18 March 2011
28/03/2011	LBB-022	2,000	400	5	21 March – 25 March 2011
31/03/2011		-2,000
		61,000

There are for the services of a Mr David Garfield who is either acting as "Lead Change Manager - SAP Optimisation" at £400 a day on some of the days and "Lead Change Manager / Assistant Project Manager - SAP Optimisation" at £500 a day on other days.

One would have thought that after running SAP for 7 years a Council employee might have got the hang of it ?

Another £5,600 was paid out in April. Nice work if you can get it.

SAP is just a glorified database with a set of rules - how hard can it be ?

Now looking at the actual payments what do you notice ?

A good start to the relationship - a double payment of £4,000 on 5 October 2010 which was corrected on 19 October 2010. It was coyly described as "credited incorrectly" - I would suggest that is "paid incorrectly".

Many of the invoices are for a week to a Friday and they are being paid on the following Monday. That is indecent haste and probably means that the necessary checking is not thorough as the earlier double payment indicates. Barnet Council really should be taking 30 days credit from the vast majority of suppliers. The effect on cashflow and borrowing would be enormous.

There was another double payment of £2,500 on 8 March 2011 which was, by the looks of it, partially clawed back in the sum of £2,000 on 31 March 2011. Does Garfield Associates owe the Council £500 ? I have no reason to doubt that Mr Garfield is an honest man and will tell the Council about this if he has not done so already.

We know that Procurement is in a mess. It is no surprise if that spreads to Accounts Payable who are dependent on Procurement to do their job properly for their own efficiency.

The final point is that Mr Garfield looks awfully like an employee and should be on PAYE.

If any reader works for HM Revenue & Customs and wants to increase the tax take of the Country then you know what to do.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

The best run businesses run SAP

That is what Mr Mustard got as the top google result when he put SAP in the search box and hit enter.

Of course very badly run businesses can also buy it. They won't suddenly become well run businesses ( or Councils ) overnight or even over the next decade.

Now Mr Reasonable is Barnet's leading critic of the spending on SAP and I thought I would just add a little history as I researched it for my own pleasure.

SAP started out as a little baby back in the 80s and was born ( some details of the courtship leading up to the birth of this little monster are on the SAP page to the right of the blog ) because as set out in para 3.1

"The Modernising Core Systems Programme is fundamental to the delivery of the corporate priorities, as laid out in the Corporate Plan 2004/5-2007/8. It is particularly significant to the attainment of the priority of delivering ‘a better council for a better Barnet’ through investment in modern systems. The programme also supports the delivery of the majority of objectives set out in the Information Systems, Borough Treasurer’s and Human Resources Performance Management Plans."

Leaving aside the question of why only the Borough Treasurer possesses an apostrophe - perhaps he keeps the entire stock of Barnet's apostrophes in the Council's coffers or perhaps the majority of them were lost in Iceland -  I note a slogan that has been cast aside like a worn out pair of shoes 'a better Council for a better Barnet'. Mr Mustard rather likes the sound of that; if only it could have come true ( a blog is coming in the next few days about what the residents of Barnet think about Barnet Council - it will be good, or bad, depending on which way you look at things ) . Sorry to tell you this Barnet Council but your 'Better shoes for less money' have a hole in the sole before you have worn them many times - Mr Mustard prefers the quality option 'Better shoes for more money' as that gives quality and longevity. 

If you read lots of the documents knocked out by Barnet Council you start to notice a theme.  It is a combination of expectation management and puff.

Barnet Council decided to accept some risk in this project. This was agreed on the basis that

• 4.2 - appropriate structures can be put in place to identify and manage risk.

 Oh dear, the structure that is Procurement seems to have tumbled to the ground. Why, because you didn't maintain ( keep up ) the structure Barnet Council. So that was an example of puff.

This sort of system needs very careful thought before it is purchased as once the decision has been made the supplier has his hooks into you and you can't get them out, the only way forward after that is yet more hooks whilst he drains your lifeblood.

• 5.5 The capital budget for the replacement system approved by Council on 2 March 2004 is £2.5m. This was an estimate based on the “best of breed” solution for finance, which was consistent with the approach in reports previously submitted to Cabinet ICT Committee. As this report advises, and as a result of the procurement exercise, an integrated solution is now proposed and it is currently envisaged that the additional reports referred to in paragraph 5.1 will be seeking a significant increase in the capital budget, which will include contingencies referred to in paragraph 5.4.

How did the spend get past £20million ?

And here is some expectation management

• 7.6.3 The implementation of a new project will have dramatic effects on the organisation, not only in work load requirements up to and after go live, but also when go live occurs. It is reasonable to consider that the authority will suffer a degree of reduced performance, due to changes in working practises and the demands made on persons by the new system. For a period after go live, as the organisation recovers from this, there will be significant short term failings i.e. BVPI8 (time taken to pay invoices). These risks will be addressed through the ongoing maintenance and review of the risk register and appropriate mitigation action being taken.

Then in the document we come to:-

Appendix A - Modernising Core Systems Programme Board, 2 July and Cabinet Resources Committee, 8 July 04 

Resource Descriptions, Role Definitions and Structures

The report details 6 members of senior management and 11 project team roles. The first, and presumably therefore the most important, person listed was the project sponsor. Here is the definition of his role:-

The project sponsor directly communicates the organisation’s long-term goals and visions. 

The project sponsor:

Is the ultimate owner of the project and has decision-making power in the fulfilment of the primary responsibilities, as outlined for the Project Board members

Maintains the final authority to set priorities, approve scope, and settle organisation-wide issues

Promotes the project throughout the organisation. Where conflicts exist in the completion of these responsibilities, the sponsor is empowered to negotiate and promote a solution.

Has final budget authority

The project sponsor must have:

An executive-level presence within Barnet

A clear vision of the organisation’s goals and how the project aligns with those.

The ability to make critical decisions under significant time pressures

Strong leadership skills and effective negotiation skills

A proven record of being proactively involved with organisational issues The ability to maintain good communication skills.

So whose (non) sticky fingers filled this seat ( sorry, mixed metaphors ) Yes, the then Assistant Chief Executive, Nick Walkley.

Didn't he do well !

Now there are just a few other snippets I want to share. I liked this point from Appendix B ( having your appendix out is possibly less painful than reading documents that emanate from Barnet Council )

• 7.1 Business Change - Generally, during implementation of the new system, it is expected that the business process is changed to match the system.

Or put another way, The tail is wagging the dog.

So a fortune has been spent on a system which does not match the requirements of the Council. The Council has to shoehorn itself into the system. Great.

It is a pity that Mr Mustard did not read this last week before he went to the Audit committee meeting last week as he would have asked a tough question. Never mind you can read it now Councillors.

7.3 Longer Term Benefits

In adopting a best practice model for the operation of core processes for Barnet, there will be improvements in various facets of the organisational operation: Reduced procurement costs through increased focussing the buying power of the Authority. It will be mandatory that the business utilises the preferred supplier arrangements negotiated by the Procurement function.

Oh no it won't !

Oh, and I cut and paste that garbage; I did not alter it in any way so if the English hurts please don't blame me.

And finally here is the risk evaluation matrix :-

	High	Medium	Low
Likelihood	7	11	2
Impact	21	3	0
Total	28	14	2

High = Further action needs to be immediately considered / taken and risk requires reporting

So SAP was a very risky project.

Have the risks been properly managed.

Mr Mustard does not think so.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Barnet residents respond to Barnet Council’s MetPro audit report

On Thursday 16 June 2011 the Audit Committee of the London Borough of Barnet met to discuss the internal audit report into the MetPro scandal. 

The report was commissioned as a result of pressure from Barnet residents, who alerted the Council to problems with the MetPro companies that the Council’s own procedures had completely failed to identify. 

While the audit committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Monroe Palmer, did an excellent job of identifying many serious problems with this vendor account, many issues which residents were concerned about were deemed out of scope of this investigation. Furthermore, the committee has no powers to impose any remedy, and can only aspire to “inspire the executive to do better” (to quote Maryellen Salter, Assistant Director - Audit).

In addition to the serious concerns about Barnet Council’s relationship with the MetPro companies, there are wider implications of this affair for the Council as a whole. The problems which remain to be addressed are:

A) Legal issues. The Council’s Internal Auditor cannot exclude the fact that fraud may have taken place. The Director of Corporate Governance Jeff Lustig indicated that since there was no evidence of fraud, there was no need to investigate. This is a highly unsatisfactory response and appears to be in breach of the Council’s own policies and procedures.

The Council’s financial regulations are clear on this point:

“Any suspected irregularity involving any asset, or the exercise of any function, of the Council must be reported by the appropriate Chief Officer to the Chief Internal Auditor to inform the overall assurance that can be delivered and to the Corporate Anti Fraud Team (CAFT) Manager for investigation.”

B) Contract procurement and monitoring. Barnet Council are pushing forward with the One Barnet Programme, a major outsourcing scheme, even though the audit team has identified serious and fundamental flaws in the Council’s contract procurement and monitoring processes.

The audit report into MetPro confirmed that there had been a breach of EU procurement laws which ensure fairness and anti-discrimination as well as best value. The internal audit report is silent on compliance with procurement law; however, given that only the largest 180 contracts out of 9,700 vendors are audited, it is likely that there are other legal breaches. In view of the shocking findings of the audit report and the recognition by the Audit Committee that the focus on change and the One Barnet Programme had been a contributory factor in these failures, we believe that all but essential contract renewals should be put on hold until an effective system of contract procurement and monitoring has been put in place and tested.

The multiple failings detailed in the MetPro report and in the Internal Audit Annual Opinion must be addressed, and Council staff working in procurement fully trained in the Council’s own Contract Procedure Rules before the Council can even consider embarking on an expansion of outsourcing.

The chair of the Audit Committee said that the audit department is unable to perform its duties owing to lack of resources. Barnet Council’s audit team should be strengthened and ways found to ensure that its recommendations are carried out.

C) Project management. In 2006, Barnet Council launched a SAP system to manage procurement, at an initial estimated cost of £8 million. This was done to modernise the control of payments and purchasing.

The cost of this project has spiralled to £25 million, more than three times the original estimate. Not only has this system failed to prevent the problems demonstrated by the MetPro report, it seems that the promised benefits of automation have not materialised. MetPro invoices have had handwritten numbers and notes on them. Payments have been made to non authorised accounts, and it seems that no proper audit trail exists. How can a system that cost £25 million have failed to address all of these issues?

The SAP fiasco shows that Barnet Council cannot manage large projects, cannot control costs and cannot implement outsourcing projects that work. They should not be considering One Barnet outsourcing until they fix the problems with their project management that the MetPro scandal has highlighted.

D) Safeguarding. The issues of safeguarding raised by MetPro have not been addressed. In light of the contact with vulnerable adults and children at Barbara Langstone House by MetPro employees who were neither SIA licensed nor CRB checked, Barnet Council should investigate in conjunction with the police whether there was the potential for or actual incidents of abuse, not only in relation to MetPro, but also in relation to any other security firms engaged by the Council. In addition, Barnet Council should keep central registers of all CRB, SIA and other required checks for all people working with the Council. This issue should be addressed immediately.

Barnet Council should work with residents who were illegally filmed by MetPro at the Council meeting on 1 March to address any data protection issues that arose from that episode, and possible other actions of this nature, instead of, as it has done up until now, trying to wash its hands of all responsibility.

E) VAT and invoicing. The Council do not have procedures in place to ensure that invoices meet legal requirements. The example on the Council’s own website is deficient. It is clear that staff are not properly trained in dealing with payments. A training programme must be instituted as a matter of urgency, to ensure compliance.

F) Culture. It is of great concern that the Audit Committee has made similar criticisms in the past, yet there has been a further deterioration. This should be a disciplinary matter for senior management, since it is accepted by the CEO, Nick Walkley, that this is a widespread problem resulting from lack of proper operational management. It is clear that attempts to inspire an audit culture have failed.

There is a culture of complacency at the top of Barnet Council. Senior officers know that they will not be held to account for any failings that take place under them, and that they can expect huge payoffs if problems are detected. Senior posts are filled by contractors on short contracts, with no vested interest in the future of the Council. No effort is made to replace these interim appointments with permanent staff. Until this culture of complacency is eradicated, nothing will improve. Senior staff should not be contractors on temporary contracts with no vested interest in improving the procurement culture, since it is clear that a root and branch review is likely to uncover more issues which will require addressing.

As concerned residents, we call for all of the issues above to be dealt with immediately. We want an action plan to be drawn up, with short timescales, and published for residents’ information. Without this, the residents can have no confidence in Barnet Council, its executive or its leadership Nick Walkley

Signed:

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Adam Langleben

Vicki Morris

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

Where your money goes #1 - CDT Design Ltd

Mr Mustard is going to develop a series of blogs in order to highlight some of the spending of Barnet Council because very little is known about it. As the Council are committed to transparency I feel sure they will be falling over themselves to write and thank me.

The following payments were made to CDT Design in the first quarter of 2011:

Date	Reference	Amount
16/02/2011	5000292078	£750.00
06/01/2011	5000286711	£12,500.00
06/01/2011	5000286710	£11,500.00
31/01/2011	5000289685	£750.00
06/01/2011	5000286712	£650.07

Please provide full details of the services provided.

My response to your request is below.

Response

CDT Design supported the design of a new website for the council to be launched later in the year and their charges cover work associated with this.  "Supported" the design. More OneBarnet speak. Did they design it or did they just sit and watch. Another FOI request required.

They have also been involved in supporting the ‘Barnet Jobs’ website. Anyone else want £25,000 for supporting Barnet Council ? How many websites does OneCouncil need. One less.

Hang on a minute. 2,700 jobs are going and you are running up a new website to find more staff. Doesn't that seem a bit perverse or is it a website to help newly sacked staff find new jobs elsewhere ?

Both of these websites are expected to lead to significant savings for the council. Now where have we heard that before, perhaps it was in connection with SAP whose cost has more or less trebled from £8million to £20million-odd ( not exactly sure ) and the shortcomings of which have been so painfully exposed in the MetPro debacle. But if the expectations are not met will anyone notice and can that vague hope ( significant ? - no figures provided ) even be stood up anyway, I doubt it.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Nick Walkley

Guess the number of sweets in the jar.

Today, another game. I expect you remember this one from the village fête. A clear container would be full of sweets, or marbles or beans or some such regular roundish object and you bought a ticket and had to guess how many items were in the jar. The nearest to the correct number won.

In Barnet, that is far to easy a game. The container in Barnet is the Council's coffers and they are not of course transparent. They used to contain pound coins but they have all been given away to leaving employees - this is the "guess how much money Barnet Council gave away as compensation for loss of office in the year to 31 March 2011 game". Not a very catchy title I would agree and not a game but very serious for those affected and if you bought a ticket ( they are no longer a shilling and instead of raffle tickets they are now called Council Tax Demands - or snaffle tickets ? ) you can have a go.

Now you sir what do you say :

£5 - be serious now, try again

£50 - come on, look at the size of those coffers

£506 - hardly enough to pay off the tea boy now he has been automated

£5,060 - probably enough for one leaver

£50,600 - that's most of a department gone - I do hope we don't need them still

£506,000 - now you are getting warmer but there is still some way to go

£5,060,000 - what's that madam, you were only joking, you can't quite believe that Barnet Council decided to employ so many people that they suddenly don't need any longer.

Oh hang on, here's a late entry £7,607,000 - ah, you played last year didn't you young man. 

So shockingly, Barnet Council paid out a total of £5,060,000 in redundancy money in the year ended 31 March 2011 which means that either they had a load of staff sitting around doing absolutely nothing and/or they have outsourced a load of posts which will probably ultimately not save anything and/or they have let a number of useful employees go and/or no-one in management plans properly for the future.

This is how the Council describe it in the unaudited Accounts to 31/3/2011.

45.Termination Benefits

The Authority terminated the contracts of a number of employees in 2010/11, incurring liabilities of £5.060m (£7.607m in 2009/10). Of this total, £0.531m is payable to 6 Directors, in the form of compensation for loss of office and enhanced pension benefits of £0.224m, as disclosed in Note 35. The remaining £4.305m is payable to other officers who were made redundant as part of the Authority’s rationalisation of the Service.

So let's think, £7million of rationalisation in 2009/10 and £5million more in 2010/11 and millions more to come ?

When will Barnet Council be rationalised ?

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

Nick Walkley

Non-stick Nick speaks.

Each week the employees at Barnet Council wait with bated breath for the weekly missive from their Chief Executive ( please do not believe everything that you read on this blog ) telling them how fantastic things are in Barnet, even if they aren't.

For the last 2 weeks Mr Traversty has sent this missive at the probable cost of about £20 a word ( actually I am not even sure the management actually write them - there is probably a ghost writer hiding at NLBP somewhere, in the Speech Preparation Internalisation Network unit , or SPIN-u for short ) and at the end of last week's message he wrote :-

"We will announce plans next week on just how we propose to do this"

So here is this week's message, from non-stick Nick himself, fresh from his uncomfortable appearance in front of the Audit Committee, where he looked as hot and sweaty as a frying pan full of melted butter, ( watch out for the fire non-stick as the Barnet Bloggers are not about to turn the gas down low ) :-

Last night's Audit Committee meeting was, quite rightly, amongst the most difficult in my time as Chief Executive.

Alongside the Metpro report, which was dealt with in last week’s email, I attended to specifically respond to the Internal Audit Annual Report. This, like the Metpro Report, pulled no punches but is rather more important in the conclusions it draws about aspects of the council's work. Overall it gives only "limited assurance" that we have the right controls in place to ensure that we spend wisely and meet the objectives we set.

As I confirmed to the Committee its vital that we have the robust internal challenge that audit provides and for too long I do not think that has been the case. However equally important is that when we identify concerns we learn from the findings and act on them.

Members have an absolute right to expect that when we get things wrong we prioritise putting them right. Last night I committed us to addressing all of the issues raised by the Internal Audit Annual Report.

On procurement this means a rapid programme of activity that will involve many staff across the council. An action plan is in place and procurement leads across the council are being briefed.

Much media focus has been on "who is to blame" and "who is going to carry the can?". However my firm belief is that now is the time for all of us to ensure that the contractual arrangements and suppliers we depend on are documented, monitored and in place and where they are not take action to tackle this. There will be more about this process in First Team but now is the time to make sure any suppliers you use have been through the right process. Moreover if you are concerned about an issue or your own knowledge/skills in this area - speak up. This is a time to put things right and not simply point fingers.

A second strong theme in the report is our management of information. We have made really good progress on Data Protection over the last year but there are still instances of paper records in particular leaving the offices unnecessarily. Keeping adequate control is not just about the right system but also that everyone follows those systems and procedures. Across the council, information management and contract management are matters that the vast majority of us have a roll to play in.

Its an oddity of the role of Chief Executive that I find myself congratulating the Assistant Director for internal audit Maryellen Salter on the quality of her work whilst then having to challenge myself and the rest of the council to rise to the challenges that work gives us. But as custodians of public money that is exactly how it should be.

Nick

Now I expect that you have already been to the sites of other Barnet Bloggers today:-

Rocketing Roger Tichborne was first out of the traps 

Click here

and Mrs Angry of Broken Barnet was as witty & withering as usual

Click here
 

Now, this roll that you have to play non-stick Nick; would that be a cheese roll or a management role ? Oh dear.

So moving to more serious matters which the employees need to know about as they certainly won't have got the full picture from the Chief Exec's message:-

So last week Traversty said that plans would be announced and Mr Mustard was looking forward to reading them. Now non-stick Nick blithely says that "plans are in place". Oh what short memories you think we have. Please publish the plan or a Freedom of Information request will have to be made for it.

You forget to tell your staff what "Limited Assurance" means. Unless one read the definition one might think that it was almost OK. An Audit with Limited Assurance means :-

"Weaknesses in the system of internal controls are such as to put the client’s objectives at risk. The level of non-compliance puts the system objectives at risk."

i.e. the systems are pants ! and anything could be happening, as it was in the case of MetPro.

It also means management have not been doing their job, at every level, up to and including the Chief Executive.

Also, as well as paperwork going out of the building, non-stick Nick forgot to mention that Treasury were taking unencrypted laptops home that contained all of the bank details of the Council. Oh dear again, a complete data protection disaster, but evidently not worth a mention.

A good job I mentioned it then.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

keyword : Nick Walkley

Its easy to be generous with other people's money

This is a copy from the unaudited Accounts to 31 March 2011 of all "Senior Officers whose salary is less than £150,000 but equal to or more than £50,000 per year. The disclosure shows Directors, Assistant Directors and Head of Service reporting to Directors in 2010/11."

Mr Mustard wonders if that means that there  are other staff who, perhaps with overtime, earn over £50,000 a year but don't get listed because they are not senior enough ?

Post Title	Note	Salary (Incl fees & allowances)	Compensation for Loss of Office	Pension Conts	Total
		£	£	£	£
Director of Environment and Transport	v+vi	67,689	143,832	16,685	228,206
Assistant Director of Building Control & Structures		95,389	96,692	23,268	215,349
Assistant Director Inclusion	v	65,201	103,955	15,952	185,108
Principle Inspector - Challenge Intervention	v	69,459	95,661	16,190	181,310
Director of Planning Housing & Regeneration		139,200	-	34,522	173,722
Director of Adult Social Care & Health		138,964	-	34,463	173,427
Director of Commercial Services		132,480	-	32,855	165,335
Director of Corporate Governance		132,480	-	32,855	165,335
Director of Corporate Services	v	80,000	58,923	22,568	161,491
Director of Environment and Operations		122,014	-	30,259	152,273
Assistant Director Regeneration		93,495	20,511	23,187	137,193
Deputy Director of Adult Social Services		107,907	-	26,761	134,668
Assistant Director Customer Services & Libraries		104,673	-	25,959	130,632
Director of Strategy	v	53,586	67,793	13,289	134,668
Assistant Director - Legal		99,555	-	24,690	124,245
Assistant Director - Corporate Programs & Estates		95,467	-	23,676	119,143
Assistant Director - Social Care		95,091	-	23,483	118,574
Head of Revenues and Benefits		82,871	-	20,456	103,327
Assistant Director Environment		90,986	-	22,068	113,054
Assistant Director - Transformation & Resources		89,763	-	22,224	111,987
Assistant Director Planning & Development		86,823	-	21,532	108,355
Assistant Director Strategy		86,823	-	21,532	108,355
Assistant Director Policy, Planning & Performance		86,539	-	21,243	107,782
Acting Assistant Director of Community Safety		85,737	-	20,967	106,704
Acting Assistant Director of Schools and Learning	v	86,186	-	20,515	106,701
Assistant Director - Financial Services	v	83,289	-	19,692	102,981
Head of Information Systems		75,749	-	18,786	94,535
Democratic Services Manager		72,048	-	17,868	89,916
Head of Governance & Service Development		72,048	-	17,868	89,916
Head of Business Partnering & Change		70,287	-	17,431	87,718
Regeneration and Transport Manager		68,574	-	17,006	85,580
Head of Corporate Procurement		68,574	-	17,006	85,580
Head of Performance		66,903	-	16,592	83,495
Acting Corporate Anti Fraud Team Manager		65,277	-	16,189	81,466
Head of Strategic Commissioning		65,277	-	16,189	81,466
Head of Human Resources Service Delivery	v	63,863	-	15,838	79,701
Deputy Director - Children's Services	v	58,000	-	14,384
Assistant Director Strategic Finance	v	45,808	-	11,360	57,168
Assistant Director - Shared Services	v	13,827	42,675	3,429	59,931
Assistant Director Audit & Risk Management	v	39,999	-	9,920	49,919
Assistant Director - Environment & Operations	v	9,058	-	2,246	11,304
Totals		3,326,959	630,042	823,003	4,780,004