Over at MayorWatch, ex-assembly member Damien Hockney has rightly expressed concern about the redundancy of Director of Corporate Services Janet Worth from City Hall.
Janet was by all reports a highly respected administrator who was ready to take on both the old and the new administration when it was necessary.
Her departure has therefore caused much surprise and consternation within City Hall.
However, what is more worrying, is the widespread perception that Boris has prioritised cost-cutting above all other considerations.
Hockney, who is a member of the Taxpayers Alliance and a long time small government man, believes that Boris is making short term cuts at the expense of longer term value for money:
"A remark the new Mayor made about wanting a lean mean machine to run London should receive the support of all. But squeezing local government of good people and treating those who remain like a second class state in the name of savings is false economy and is the type of thing that brings the concept of value for money into disrepute."
Hockney quotes a senior official within City Hall as saying:
“Staff and elected members are shocked at Janet’s early retirement and many are concerned that she will not be there to work with them through a time of change and uncertainty for hundreds of staff who have always turned to her as the steady, calm leader. What does it say to other female managers - if someone as outstanding as Janet is forced to leave why would they want to stay.”
Of course the loss of one official is not cause for concern of itself, but when it comes amidst the loss of other highly experienced staff, and amidst the appointment of staff members who have nowhere near that level of experience, then alarm bells should start to ring.
The restructuring of the Mayor's office, highlighted here earlier this week, now seems a clear sign of things to come.
For a demonstration of this, take a look at this table taken from the Mayor's leaked reorganisation plans:
The first figure which jumps out at you is obviously the total savings of £847,000 a year.
However, if you look again, you see that what has happened is the replacement of higher grade officials, with lower grade alternatives.
Now you can argue that this may have been necessary, and like Hockney, I am not against job cuts per se.
But when you are bringing in a new Mayor and new appointments, some of whom have little or no local government experience, then you should always be cautious about losing those very people who actually do have the experience that's required.
As Hockney points out, this isn't an argument about big-spending vs small-spending, but an argument about how you get the value out of the money that you do spend.
And by giving so much focus and publicity to his short-term cuts, is Boris merely saving up longer-term problems for himself and his team at City Hall?