Our West Berks Councillors, General costs Options

[Exhausted]

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

[NWNREADER]

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'.

[Exhausted]

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.

[Strafin]

So are portfolio holders getting £6k and £8k together? £14 grand for a part time hobby? Really, that's ridiculous.

[NWNREADER]

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.

[Cognosco]

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?

[NWNREADER]

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

[Cognosco]

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.

[NWNREADER]

No, actually.

As with so much in life, it's not what you do, it's the way that you do it. The localities do need a management body. Only using employed Officers, who directs their work to be in the interests of the locals?

Councillors are a good system, but the tail is wagging the dog.

[On the edge]

Yes actually!

Localities don't need a management body. Particularly as nearly everything they do is prescribed by central government and carried out by professional administrators. The Councillor role is now superfluous. Local input or direction is unwelcome and unnecessary; if it occurred, it would bring a 'post code lottery' and accusations of discrimination.

After all, the most significant public organisation we deal with, HMRC has no Councillor type role. Similarly, the most intimate public service, delivered very locally, the NHS has no Councillor type role.

I can see no function or role presently done by Local Councillors that couldn't be done by a voluntary Residents Association, or the citizens concerned on an individual basis.

[NWNREADER]

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

[blackdog]

Surely the district council is a resident's association.

[On the edge]

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.

[blackdog]

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.

[On the edge]

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?

[Andy Capp]

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.

[Exhausted]

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.

[Andy Capp]

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?

[On the edge]

That's a valid point, but I suspect most queries and complaints are taken up with the staff first. The Councillor only being called when the complainant can egg no satisfaction.

However, the Councillor then has to engage the staff, in effect as the Complianant. That means the cost in resource by the administration will be the same, or perhaps a little less because less time would be used briefing the Councillor, in effect a third party.

In general, Councillors become simply post boxes. My experience with our present MP's predecessor; who used simply to copy back the Ministers response!

[On the edge]

The system could work if, and it's a very big if, the Councillors found their backbone and started doing what they used to do. At one time, they did determine strategy and direct the administrators. It did mean localities did things their way, which might have been different from the town along the road - no issue with that! So if you didn't like the way your kids were educated in Reading, you simply moved to a town that suited better.

This would take leadership and guts; challenging petty fogging bureaucrats all the way. It means having Councillors who act as real leaders and not simply cheerleaders for the party vote machine.