Welcome to Newburytoday.co.uk’s message boards where you can have your say and share your views on any number of issues.
Anyone can read messages, but only registered users can post messages, reply to messages or create new topics. As part of the free and simple registration, you will be asked to read and conform to the house rules.
To register, click here ……Enjoy the debate. Newbury Today Forum > Categories > Random Rants
|
|
Our West Berks Councillors, General costs |
|
|
|
Dec 1 2013, 12:49 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
A look through the costs for West Berkshire councillors was quite interesting. There are some members who serve on the council and are, in some cases, portfolio holders, who appear to have high attendance records and reasonable or no expenses claims. These can be viewed on the WBC web site at www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3513
There is one councillor though who seems to stand out well above most of them and that is Councillor Joe Mooney Conservative Birch Copse (Tilehurst) and portfolio holder for Community Care. Apart from the level of expenses for mileage, parking, rail fare and accommodation, each year he draws £6,149 as a council member and £8,197 for being the portfolio holder on the executive committee. This might seem reasonable other than since May 2011 he should have attended 44 meetings, he actually only attended 28. I’m sure that he had his reasons for this record of attendance but this is not borne out by his expenses.
Expenses are for 2910/11/12/and 13
Mileage allowance £7,201 Parking £245 Rail fares £687 Conference attendance £425
Allen Law at the other end of the scale, although his expenses are higher than normal, his record tells the story. Councillor for Basildon, on the exec committee and portfolio holder for Finance, Economic development, Health and Safety, Human Resources, Pensions and finally Property.
Attendance record 108 meetings scheduled and attended 92 in the same period. Remuneration as a council member £6,149 Exec member £8,197 Mileage allowance £9,723
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2013, 02:06 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265
|
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 1 2013, 12:49 PM) A look through the costs for West Berkshire councillors was quite interesting. There are some members who serve on the council and are, in some cases, portfolio holders, who appear to have high attendance records and reasonable or no expenses claims. These can be viewed on the WBC web site at www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3513
There is one councillor though who seems to stand out well above most of them and that is Councillor Joe Mooney Conservative Birch Copse (Tilehurst) and portfolio holder for Community Care. Apart from the level of expenses for mileage, parking, rail fare and accommodation, each year he draws £6,149 as a council member and £8,197 for being the portfolio holder on the executive committee. This might seem reasonable other than since May 2011 he should have attended 44 meetings, he actually only attended 28. I’m sure that he had his reasons for this record of attendance but this is not borne out by his expenses.
Expenses are for 2910/11/12/and 13
Mileage allowance £7,201 Parking £245 Rail fares £687 Conference attendance £425
Allen Law at the other end of the scale, although his expenses are higher than normal, his record tells the story. Councillor for Basildon, on the exec committee and portfolio holder for Finance, Economic development, Health and Safety, Human Resources, Pensions and finally Property.
Attendance record 108 meetings scheduled and attended 92 in the same period. Remuneration as a council member £6,149 Exec member £8,197 Mileage allowance £9,723 As with so many statistics, the numbers raise questions but give no answers. Quality takes more than meetings v cost, I reckon. An indicator, but only of what should be examined. That said, I think it fair to have some footnotes to the figures where illness/national roles etc have skewed the figures. Back in the day when Councillors drew no fees only particular tranches of the population could stand. Now there is a scheme whereby a wider range of people can stand we have issues over expenses……. My view is expenses (proper ones) are fine, but I have doubts about 'pay'.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2013, 02:27 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Dec 1 2013, 02:06 PM) As with so many statistics, the numbers raise questions but give no answers. Quality takes more than meetings v cost, I reckon. An indicator, but only of what should be examined. That said, I think it fair to have some footnotes to the figures where illness/national roles etc have skewed the figures. Back in the day when Councillors drew no fees only particular tranches of the population could stand. Now there is a scheme whereby a wider range of people can stand we have issues over expenses……. My view is expenses (proper ones) are fine, but I have doubts about 'pay'. Yes, I agree with all your comments but the reason for the skewed figures, as you put it, is not made available on the WBC website or anywhere else that I can find. Generally then, one is left with comparative statistics. It would be expected that there would be a certain amount of equality between councillors. As far as I can determine, the major amount of the work is carried out by the footsoldiers and the preparation of reports and recommendations come from them.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2013, 04:03 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265
|
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 1 2013, 02:27 PM) Yes, I agree with all your comments but the reason for the skewed figures, as you put it, is not made available on the WBC website or anywhere else that I can find. Generally then, one is left with comparative statistics. It would be expected that there would be a certain amount of equality between councillors. As far as I can determine, the major amount of the work is carried out by the footsoldiers and the preparation of reports and recommendations come from them. I don't seek to protect the good Burghers. Your observation re absence of explanation is correct. I think the Report should explain exceptions and anomalies, and Councillors should be subject to scrutiny - not just through the Ballot - as to their proper conduct of duty. Whatever there is at the moment is not adequate to keep minds focused.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2013, 04:57 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212
|
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Dec 1 2013, 04:03 PM) I don't seek to protect the good Burghers. Your observation re absence of explanation is correct. I think the Report should explain exceptions and anomalies, and Councillors should be subject to scrutiny - not just through the Ballot - as to their proper conduct of duty. Whatever there is at the moment is not adequate to keep minds focused. And you are not aware that this is for a reason? The elected Councillors are only there as a token gesture of democracy, after all as they are only put in position to persuade the electorate that they have been given a choice of sorts. It would be naive to suggest that any Councillor would go against the dictated wishes of the Chief Executive or party line, look at the instance of the proposed on street parking charges proposal that has been pushed through? Even so called opposition Councillors only go through the charade of opposition as they know how to play the game and the bottom line is they need to get elected to ensure that the gravy train rolls on with the correct order in society with ensuring everyone knows their relevant place! As with traffic lights roads appear to run more smoothly if switched off I do wonder if society would run more smoothly and cost far less if Councillors were abolished? Yes - I hear you say that the electorate should be able to choose but stop and think - what choice are you actually being given? When has any of the two local Councils ever listened to what the electorate actually requires apart from the usual few stalwarts who bother to reply when consulted. The times I have heard the comment that it is no use replying to any consultation as they have already made up their minds exactly what they want to achieve?
--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2013, 06:25 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212
|
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Dec 1 2013, 06:01 PM) That is a far more radical issue……. and not particularly relevant to whether Councillors earn their corn.
Local councils are pretty much told what to do by central government: if not by direction then by allocation of grants etc. (No grants = raised Council Tax = voted out).
While Councils run on adversarial Party lines there will always be mud slinging more than action, and little to discern So agreed Councillors totally pointless and needless added burden to ratepayers? Yes = payment for waffle? The only debate required now is how to dispose of the Captain Mainwarings without even more cost to the already overburdened ratepayer.
--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 1 2013, 11:09 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265
|
Nothing wrong with different opinions,,,,
The central govt role in local issues is not proper. It is a means to an end. I would not want someone in London deciding whether or not a development can be built in Newbury (let alone Andover, Truro, etc).
As for things being done by a residents association - is that not then a management body?
It is all a matter of balance, I reckon. A structured system that is government of the people, by the people and for the people; not just the first bit
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2013, 07:54 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Dec 1 2013, 11:09 PM) Nothing wrong with different opinions,,,,
The central govt role in local issues is not proper. It is a means to an end. I would not want someone in London deciding whether or not a development can be built in Newbury (let alone Andover, Truro, etc).
As for things being done by a residents association - is that not then a management body?
It is all a matter of balance, I reckon. A structured system that is government of the people, by the people and for the people; not just the first bit No, central government role in local issues is not proper, but no one is likely to change it, because of the vested interest. Even those in the localities would object, screaming post code lottery the minute any real difference was determined. We already have a very prescriptive planning mechanism, like it or not, decisions aren't really taken by local councillors. Otherwise, Vodafone etc. would never have been built. Would Parkway have happened if it was just local opinion that counted? A residents association is simply a voluntary advisory group, similar in this case to a Parish Council. The difference being that Parish Councils are statutory bodies with cash precepting powers. In theory, we have a structured system that is government of the people by the people. It just doesn't work meaning a radical revision or abolition is necessary. We've tried revision, latterly with the Unitary idea, that hasn't worked, so abolition would appear the only alternative left.
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2013, 09:16 AM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 2 2013, 07:54 AM) No, central government role in local issues is not proper, but no one is likely to change it, because of the vested interest. ...
In theory, we have a structured system that is government of the people by the people. It just doesn't work meaning a radical revision or abolition is necessary. We've tried revision, latterly with the Unitary idea, that hasn't worked, so abolition would appear the only alternative left. I fail to see why we should just give up and abolish local councils because vested interests don't want them to have real power.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2013, 01:00 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98
|
QUOTE (blackdog @ Dec 2 2013, 09:16 AM) I fail to see why we should just give up and abolish local councils because vested interests don't want them to have real power. First rule of dead horses, if you find your self on one, jump off. Personally, I don't see why I should pay quite a big sum for absolutely no return. Again, what do Councillors actually achieve?
--------------------
Know your place!
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2013, 01:37 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (On the edge @ Dec 2 2013, 01:00 PM) First rule of dead horses, if you find your self on one, jump off.
Personally, I don't see why I should pay quite a big sum for absolutely no return. Again, what do Councillors actually achieve? Traditionally, they would act as an inexpensive buffer between the general public and council officers. They would be the first go-to if you have a problem of a community issue, thus saving using up officer time. They should then be in a better position to advise, or take up your predicament.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2013, 04:38 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320
|
QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Dec 2 2013, 01:37 PM) Traditionally, they would act as an inexpensive buffer between the general public and council officers. They would be the first go-to if you have a problem of a community issue, thus saving using up officer time. They should then be in a better position to advise, or take up your predicament. Well, whatever you mean by traditionally and inexpensive, The WBC councillors cost this year with their remuneration and travelling expenses £469,850 give or take. That is half a million close on. That to my mind in its current format is not an inexpensive buffer.
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 2 2013, 05:08 PM
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317
|
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Dec 2 2013, 04:38 PM) Well, whatever you mean by traditionally and inexpensive, The WBC councillors cost this year with their remuneration and travelling expenses £469,850 give or take. That is half a million close on.
That to my mind in its current format is not an inexpensive buffer. How much would it cost if councillor time was replaced by officer time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
|