IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> 16.5% increase to WBC councillor basic allowance
Simon Kirby
post May 13 2015, 05:07 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



This article says that a recommendation to increase the WBC councillor allowance by 16.5% is to be voted on next week.

The current basic allowance is £6,285 and the proposal is to increase that to £7,324, with an additional cost to the tax-payer of £54k. That's offset a little by the abolition of a £200 broadband allowance and a £200 IT consumables allowance, but as only one in four councillors claim that it's not a big saving.

That does seem to be an excessively generous increase for a job that, in my view, should be done without reward for the public benefit. I accept that an allowance to cover necessary expenses is appropriate, but at a guess I'd have thought a tenth of that allowance was adequate.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post May 13 2015, 05:19 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 13 2015, 06:07 PM) *
This article says that a recommendation to increase the WBC councillor allowance by 16.5% is to be voted on next week.

The current basic allowance is £6,285 and the proposal is to increase that to £7,324, with an additional cost to the tax-payer of £54k. That's offset a little by the abolition of a £200 broadband allowance and a £200 IT consumables allowance, but as only one in four councillors claim that it's not a big saving.

That does seem to be an excessively generous increase for a job that, in my view, should be done without reward for the public benefit. I accept that an allowance to cover necessary expenses is appropriate, but at a guess I'd have thought a tenth of that allowance was adequate.


Remember "We are all in it together" rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post May 13 2015, 05:27 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



How do they arrive at that sort of percentage.
I can understand UNISON being a bit miffed as their members at the council have been pushed hard with the austerity measures which have been approved by the elected councillors and no doubt will be looking to this as a precedent.
The councillors might do the decent thing and vote against the proposals, who knows, but I just saw a pig flying by.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CharlieF
post May 13 2015, 06:00 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 166
Joined: 21-March 11
From: Newbury
Member No.: 3,706



There's a document that explains the rationale. And if I may can I draw your attention to section 8.6.

QUOTE
8.6 A number of Members highlighted the difficulty that the political groups have in
recruiting new Councillors, particularly with reference to the time commitment
required and the relatively low level of remuneration. The Panel noted that in order
to attract candidates from more diverse backgrounds, as well as young employed
professionals, it is necessary to attempt to mitigate some of the factors that may
dissuade some people from standing for election.


May I now draw your attention to Dave Yates' letter to the Newbury Weekly News of 23rd April 2015.

QUOTE
PARTY POLITICS IS RUINING OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

I have for many years now, witnessed the process leading up to the Local Elections, where the two main parties on West Berkshire Council run around cajoling, pleading and sometimes bullying people into standing as candidates for the 52 seats on the District Council. Each side sees that the inability to field a full complement of candidates would be seized upon by the other as a weakness, a lack of support.

Agents and activists from both sides spend the final weeks running up to the deadline for nominations, pleading with reluctant potentials to allow their names to be put forward, sometimes to the point of promising that there is no chance of them being elected.

Once campaigning starts proper, the goal posts are moved, and these seats are actively targeted on behalf of a person who doesn’t want to win. Reason? To remove the big guns from the opposing benches.

Party HQ in London sends a celebrity big name MP, to come and be seen by the electorate as they flood the ward weekend after weekend with activists. Their intention is to oust the better person.

This process drives down the quality of our representation within the Council Chamber. Someone who may have devoted years to the community they represent, is replaced by someone, who is at best, a reluctant participant. This is beneficial to the Parties, as it leaves the Council Chamber full of yes men, half of whom couldn’t be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet seat, and the ruling executive can implement at will, directives sent down from their party masters in Whitehall. At which point Party Politics in Local Government becomes less about good governance than about control, and ultimately about power.

The promotion of Party Politics in local government is the worst expression of tribalism after racism.

Yours faithfully,

David Yates


Ain't that the truth!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 13 2015, 06:26 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 13 2015, 06:07 PM) *
That does seem to be an excessively generous increase for a job that, in my view, should be done without reward for the public benefit. I accept that an allowance to cover necessary expenses is appropriate, but at a guess I'd have thought a tenth of that allowance was adequate.


Aren't expenses on top of the allowance?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post May 13 2015, 07:37 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (blackdog @ May 13 2015, 07:26 PM) *
Aren't expenses on top of the allowance?

I wasn't aware of that. So the allowance is literally a payment just for being a councillor? Good grief.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post May 13 2015, 08:10 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



They just don't get it do they! What an insult and skip in the face for the new councillors where it is implied that they apparently needed financial incentives before they'd even agree to stand. If that's what they think of their own prospective support, just think what they think of us.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 13 2015, 08:53 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 13 2015, 08:37 PM) *
I wasn't aware of that. So the allowance is literally a payment just for being a councillor? Good grief.

And extra for being on the Executive, even more for being top dog.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post May 13 2015, 09:00 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (blackdog @ May 13 2015, 09:53 PM) *
And extra for being on the Executive, even more for being top dog.

I'm more easily convinced that remuneration for leader and executive is appropriate because at WBC that is starting to look like a professional role. I'm not terribly happy with the executive model and I prefer the old collective model where all councillors are really just enthusiastic amateurs advised by professional officers, but setting aside any objecting to the model itself it's difficult to deny that the Executive is more than that. But for rank-and-file I see their role akin to volunteers for the CAB, and I'm not yet convinced that remuneration is appropriate.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CrackerJack
post May 13 2015, 10:35 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 2-March 15
Member No.: 10,554



"Can you lot sharrup..??!! We're trying to concentrate on filling our expenses forms in...."


To say this will not go down well with 'the electorate' would be an understatement.....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post May 14 2015, 06:36 AM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (CrackerJack @ May 13 2015, 11:35 PM) *
"Can you lot sharrup..??!! We're trying to concentrate on filling our expenses forms in...."


To say this will not go down well with 'the electorate' would be an understatement.....


Well it must be ok with the electorate.........rather a lot of them have just re-elected them even though they have had plenty of signs given that things were not going too well to say the least? "You have made your bed now you must lay on it"! 😉


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post May 14 2015, 06:57 AM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (Cognosco @ May 14 2015, 07:36 AM) *
Well it must be ok with the electorate.........rather a lot of them have just re-elected them even though they have had plenty of signs given that things were not going too well to say the least? "You have made your bed now you must lay on it"! 😉


Great observation Cognosco! ...and there's more! I wonder just how many new NTC Councillors realised they'd get a walk on part in a street theatre production and a free goodies bag just for turning up at the first meeting.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 14 2015, 12:09 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I think if they are to be paid to do the job, they should have a councilor's KPI published.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Exhausted
post May 14 2015, 05:12 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 4-September 09
Member No.: 320



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ May 13 2015, 08:37 PM) *
I wasn't aware of that. So the allowance is literally a payment just for being a councillor? Good grief.


The full story.....

http://info.westberks.gov.uk/CHttpHandler....d=36842&p=0

That was for the year just ended. Gives you a feeling for what their income can be racked up to. Some of the mileage allowances and in some instances taxi fares are a bit excessive perhaps.

Interesting to compare the attendance record of councillors from November to todays date...

http://decisionmaking.westberks.gov.uk/mgU...nceSummary.aspx

Pamela Bale Expected 16 actual 5

Hilary Cole Expected 16 Actual 16

Billy Drummond Expected 4 Actual 2

Joe Mooney Expected 1 Actual 0

Julian Swift Hook Expected 10 Actual 7

The previous tables available on the website but I do remember Joe Mooney as one of the worst.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post May 14 2015, 05:17 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



I see that they are cutting costs in one area - by reducing the allowance paid to the leader of the opposition party!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cognosco
post May 14 2015, 08:18 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,452
Joined: 31-October 10
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE (blackdog @ May 14 2015, 06:17 PM) *
I see that they are cutting costs in one area - by reducing the allowance paid to the leader of the opposition party!


What opposition party? That is in name only, it would appear they are all tarred with the same brush and belong to the same club...............talk about charades? rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Vexatious Candidate?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post May 21 2015, 05:59 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,927
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



Surprise everyone, it went through! I don't a know how anybody voted though, I would be interested to find out.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MontyPython
post May 21 2015, 06:41 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 926
Joined: 16-June 12
Member No.: 8,755



QUOTE (Strafin @ May 21 2015, 06:59 PM) *
Surprise everyone, it went through! I don't a know how anybody voted though, I would be interested to find out.


I wonder how they would have voted prior to the election if the also new that their vote would be published!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post May 21 2015, 09:24 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,894
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Tories said aye, yum, yum, and Lib Dems said nay, we couldn't possibly justify it! *Burp*

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post May 23 2015, 07:50 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



Not just WBC.....

South Oxfordshire....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st February 2020 - 01:41 PM