MICHAEL DEMPSEY - Cranfield University

Resource distribution systems
through a subcommittee of the finance committee. So they do
see all of them. What happens is that they come in, I usually
look at them, come up with a figure that I think is reasonable
based on criteria such as past expenditure, what is happening
this time that is different from previously, whether it looks like
they are artificially increasing the numbers the meetings or the
frequency of meetings, that sort of thing. Then we have a
meeting and I highlight particular things that I have spotted,
advise on a figure that I think would be more reasonable.
Probably nine out of ten of those they agree.
There is, however, less obvious agreement than this would suggest.
Firstly the system itself is subject to criticism:-
In terms of the finances now there is a sort of bureaucratic
budgeting system which is all a paper system which does not
really work. You hear people saying this is my budget or that is
my budget and it does not matter because it is all the same
money. There is a full exercise of financial control which does
not actually exist. There are all these rules and regulations
which say that you cannot spend more than this or that amount
without getting a signature but in practice I run the department
and do things and from time to time and write a paper in respect
of significant expenditure but that budget does not get adjusted
or anything but there is no feedback or anything. (Interviewee E)
The character of the system is also seen as problematic. PCS is
substantially a centralised union. Its regional offices, as has been
mentioned, are not the hub of democratic activity as they are in some
other unions. Regional Officers are seen as ‘National Officers in the
Region’. There have been some attempts, despite this background, to
devise a devolved budgetary system. Senior managers attended a
Cranfield seminar on this topic. It did not however lead to much change
– a Senior National Officer wrote that the Administration Manager
wanted to devolve budgets related to things like post and photocopying
and budget holders didn’t want them; conversely, they did want some
of the Personnel budgets – things like staff training and overtime – and
the Personnel function did not want to release them. Consequently, it is
not surprising that there is unhappiness at the level of management
authority available over budgets. At national level:-
In the Civil Service now you would have a budgetary regime and
if I was running a local office, 45 people, I would have that
budget and decide how to deal with it as I wish; I do not have
that budget. I have a budget. I could spend as much of it as I
want, but being able to vire between different budgets is not
something I could do. On staffing, if I was running a local office
now in the Inland Revenue, I could decide to reallocate my staff
across the sections. Here, I don’t really have the power to say
‘we’re overstaffed in headquarters 1 at present, I’ll move a
negotiator from there to Southern Region to cover a temporary
137