As a reminder, those who voted for the 31% allowance increase who are up for re-election in May 2018 are -
Stephen Thomas - De Bruce
Alan Clark - Fens & Rossmere
Kaylee Sirs - Foggy Furze
Marjorie James - Manor House
Brenda Loynes - Rural West
Carl Richardson - Victoria
What will be interesting if these are selected, though James could be replaced by Daddy Belcher, or whether the Town's new non-partisan Labour Party
Quote from: gerek on June 25, 2017, 01: PM
As a reminder, those who voted for the 31% allowance increase who are up for re-election in May 2018 are -
Stephen Thomas - De Bruce
Alan Clark - Fens & Rossmere
Kaylee Sirs - Foggy Furze
Marjorie James - Manor House
Brenda Loynes - Rural West
Carl Richardson - Victoria
What will be interesting if these are selected, though James could be replaced by Daddy Belcher, or whether the Town's new non-partisan Labour Party will select their own candidates
Maximum publicity, informing the electorate how these greedy B,stards voted in favour of the 31% rise, is needed at election time...which will hopefully ensure that the two faced, lying, thieving scumbags don't get re-elected! As others here have noticed/ commented, it seems that some labour councillors are beginning to regret voting the way they did...and now they are thinking of their bank balance in 2018 and beyond! As for some of them (allegedly) being intimidated by the Scabs and Fanney...they (Scabs/ Fanney) are nothing but wind and pi$$...and they know it!
I'd hardly call a £35 per week (brfore tax) increase massive. I appreciate it has been met with hostility due to the headline 31% but surely this shows how little we allow our councillors. I would say increasing the allowance may help attract some people who are better able to perform the duties of councillor. The phrase "offer peanuts, get monkeys" springs to mind and we all know what we do with monkeys.
Look at the front page....... the LabTor coalition didn't provide value for money before the greedy t***s gave themselves the rise....
Quote from: fred c on June 27, 2017, 09: PM
Look at the front page....... the LabTor coalition didn't provide value for money before the greedy t***s gave themselves the rise....
Value for money is subjective. Whether or not we agree with the decisions made, and let me assure you I disagree with many of them, it is still subjective. As long as the elected councillors take part in the committees, help make decisions, turn up to meetings, basically take part in the process then they're doing what they were elected to do. The subjective value is whether we like or agree with the decisions made.
I certainly can't agree to the label greedy based on the allowance increase. I'm open to other information to support it but not on this. £35 a week is hardly earth shattering, even for me and I am far from a wealthy man.
And that is pre tax. You'll be looking at £10-£15 for some of them at best.
Quote from: Username on June 27, 2017, 08: PM
I'd hardly call a £35 per week (brfore tax) increase massive. I appreciate it has been met with hostility due to the headline 31% but surely this shows how little we allow our councillors. I would say increasing the allowance may help attract some people who are better able to perform the duties of councillor. The phrase "offer peanuts, get monkeys" springs to mind and we all know what we do with monkeys.
Well we've definitely got the monkeys, but the monkeys ain't going anywhere. They'll just buy more bananas. Does anyone believe that old chestnut about paying more to get a better standard of Councillor. Instead of getting useless Councillors, you just get better paid useless Councillors.
Quote from: Riddler5 on June 28, 2017, 12: AM
Quote from: Username on June 27, 2017, 08: PM
I'd hardly call a £35 per week (brfore tax) increase massive. I appreciate it has been met with hostility due to the headline 31% but surely this shows how little we allow our councillors. I would say increasing the allowance may help attract some people who are better able to perform the duties of councillor. The phrase "offer peanuts, get monkeys" springs to mind and we all know what we do with monkeys.
Well we've definitely got the monkeys, but the monkeys ain't going anywhere. They'll just buy more bananas. Does anyone believe that old chestnut about paying more to get a better standard of Councillor. Instead of getting useless Councillors, you just get better paid useless Councillors.
When Cranney was interviewed on Radio Tees he went to great lengths to say the councillors were getting an allowance rise and not a pay rise. It then follows that these allowances are paid to compensate councillors for carrying out council related work above and beyond their normal job, so I don't see how increasing this allowance will attract more suitable people to be councillors as they will already be being paid from their full time job. For me the main factors in deciding whether somebody could be a councillor would be commitment and time - money couldn't buy those.
For me the more money argument simply attracts the wrong type of person, the sort of person who is doing it for the money and only the money, plus I can't see many of them standing aside to let better people do the job. In essence what the Leader is saying, when he uses the money argument, is we aren't good enough, so provide more money and people will come forward who are - we'll find out next year
Just suppose a bus load of eminently qualified people joins the local party and decide to put themselves forward out of a desire to offer their talents. How many of the motley crew would stand aside ?
You either go into this to serve your town or to enhance yourself. The money argument is an irrelevance, it's a nice little earner and you end up with so many sheep, there may well be an EU subsidy for them in our council chamber.
How about looking at things from a slightly different angle? The allowance is to enable councillors to put in the time needed to carry out their responsibilities properly. This means they may need to take time off work to attend meetings etc. That is the purpose of the allowance. Now, imagine someone with the abiltiy to be a very good councillor, this person has a very low income, this person also would like to be involved to enrich the town. Under the previous allowance that person would lost so much money fullfilling duties correctly that they would either: miss all meetings or not be able to take part in any committees (no point standing in that event), or could deliver results but have family go hungry (which is unacceptable).
I see this as allowing a wider range of people, particularly liw income people, to be involved without too much disruption to their standard of living. Surely that is worth the pittance increase which has caused such outrage.
As for people standimg aside to allow others to stand where better qualified: the party members select the candidates. The more people involved the less influence a few people may have. It may not be a choice to stand aside in certain circumstances.
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 08: AM
How about looking at things from a slightly different angle? The allowance is to enable councillors to put in the time needed to carry out their responsibilities properly. This means they may need to take time off work to attend meetings etc. That is the purpose of the allowance. Now, imagine someone with the abiltiy to be a very good councillor, this person has a very low income, this person also would like to be involved to enrich the town. Under the previous allowance that person would lost so much money fullfilling duties correctly that they would either: miss all meetings or not be able to take part in any committees (no point standing in that event), or could deliver results but have family go hungry (which is unacceptable).
I see this as allowing a wider range of people, particularly liw income people, to be involved without too much disruption to their standard of living. Surely that is worth the pittance increase which has caused such outrage.
As for people standimg aside to allow others to stand where better qualified: the party members select the candidates. The more people involved the less influence a few people may have. It may not be a choice to stand aside in certain circumstances.
The question that then needs to be asked is how many meetings are held on an evening so people don't have to take time off work. We know that the SRA attracting meetings all take place during the day - if the Lab/Tor majority, which populate the chairs of every committee, wanted to really help they would be more open to evening meetings.
I seem to remember a couple of Full Council Meetings ago, when Martin-Wells tried to have a go at the non Lab/Tor group over on-attendance at meetings, within a second Paul Thompson's hand was up to have this very debate, whilst Devlin closed it down immediately.
I still maintain that money won't attract better people, the issue for me is time.
Maybe Mike Hill's approach of a Non Partisan Labour Group for the benefit of the town may well be the answer - this could have the effect of replacing some of the present incumbants in favour of those who are really interested in doing the town a service.
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 08: AM
The allowance is to enable councillors to put in the time needed to carry out their responsibilities properly. This means they may need to take time off work to attend meetings etc. That is the purpose of the allowance.
You've hit the nail on the head there, 'Username'.....but it's your own head. Notice the highlighted bits in your quote...the Labour councillors haven't been responsible, imo, with many, many schemes, decisions, etc, and do not seem to have the mental and moral capacity to do so, now and in the future. As for 'take time off work'... most of them don't have a proper job, so an increase in 'allowances', however small you may think it is, is their only source of money. Naturally, they are not going to refuse it, are they?
In response to Jeff: The issue is indeed time. Hence the allowance to compensate for time lost at work. It's a similar set up with some emergency services. The response volunteers leave work to attend an emergency and the loss of pay is offset to a degree by a small allowance for attending the inicdent. Pay is still lost but people do this because helping people is more important than their own pocket but, losing the pay without an allowance would prevent some from doing this valuable work. People have bills to pay and mouths to feed.
Johnny: I'm sure if you listed some of those schemes and decisions etc we might well agree. As for a proper job and capacity, if people aren't up to the job have them replaced. Not by finger pointing and shouting but by having candidates who are better, either within the local Labour Party or in another parter within their wards. If people have chosen to step up to the responsibilities more than others and it becomes a defector job then good not hem for doing their bit as long as they're up to it.
To both: I've been in council meetings where the time of various meetings was discussed. The chairs of each committee have the freedom to hold the meetings whenever they wish. IT was mentioned that evening meetings in various parts of the town were held but it was still the same people who attended regardless. This doesn't change the fact that the allowance is there to mitigate any loss of income from primary employment when carrying out council duties. Yes some people will lose a little income when they choose council work over their primary work (where applicable), this is the same in many sectors and for many people who take part in charity or volunteer work. It's all about getting the people willing to make that sacrifice while still being up to the task.
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 10: AM
. It's all about getting the people willing to make that sacrifice while still being up to the task.
The SCAB family, Wells, Cranney, Barclay and James are clearly not 'up to the task'. You know it and I know it. They have stitched up the selection process in both Tory and Labour Party so that they only select those who they
know will bend to their will.
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 10: AM
In response to Jeff: The issue is indeed time. Hence the allowance to compensate for time lost at work. It's a similar set up with some emergency services. The response volunteers leave work to attend an emergency and the loss of pay is offset to a degree by a small allowance for attending the inicdent. Pay is still lost but people do this because helping people is more important than their own pocket but, losing the pay without an allowance would prevent some from doing this valuable work. People have bills to pay and mouths to feed.
To both: I've been in council meetings where the time of various meetings was discussed. The chairs of each committee have the freedom to hold the meetings whenever they wish. IT was mentioned that evening meetings in various parts of the town were held but it was still the same people who attended regardless. This doesn't change the fact that the allowance is there to mitigate any loss of income from primary employment when carrying out council duties. Yes some people will lose a little income when they choose council work over their primary work (where applicable), this is the same in many sectors and for many people who take part in charity or volunteer work. It's all about getting the people willing to make that sacrifice while still being up to the task.
The difference between councillors attending meetings and volunteer emergency workers is that the councillors have control over when the meetings are whilst volunteer emergency responders do not.
The argument regarding public attendance at meetings is weak as the primary concern here is getting COUNCILLORS to attend - if there is no impact on public attendance why not hold the meetings when more councillors are available?
Some jobs preclude you from attending meetings - imagine the newest member from Headland Harbour popping out from A&E to attend a Planning Committee Meeting?
Evening meetings of committees have a cost implication toe HBC which was also explained, in addition to the cost of opening the building the council staff who need to present to those committees are paid overtime to attend the evening meetings. This costs significantly more than the £35 a week allowance increase.
And of course not Jeff but as the meetings are posted in advance I'm sure whether it's A&E or something else then time off can be booked or shifts can be swapped.
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 10: AM
Evening meetings of committees have a cost implication toe HBC which was also explained, in addition to the cost of opening the building the council staff who need to present to those committees are paid overtime to attend the evening meetings. This costs significantly more than the £35 a week allowance increase.
And of course not Jeff but as the meetings are posted in advance I'm sure whether it's A&E or something else then time off can be booked or shifts can be swapped.
My understanding that the increase is £75,000 per year - what would be the cost of evening meetings?
So it is OK for the employed to swap shifts etc. - so why aren't we saying that to those councillors who do work, won't budge from daytime meetings when they know that a greater pool of councillors would be available if they met on an evening.
This reluctance to have evening meetings flies in the face of the Constitution where politically balanced committees are called for, yet due to restricted meeting times that is unachievable - now that might be a reason to keep the meetings to daytime hours.
Attempts to justify an increase in councillors allowances here is futile, to many people have have been around for to long to swallow any of that magumba, how many of the ruling group actually work, of those how many 'work' in the community / voluntary / charity sector.
You mention that allowances should be used in lieu of salary if a councillor forgoes his / her primary employment in order to attend to council business, 'that may be the intended purpose' however a point worth mentioning is..... an elected officer of this council, chose to inform his employer that he would be attending a funeral, if it had ben a genuine reason for time off, his employer would in all probability have paid him for that day, if as you claim councillors allowances should be used for such a purpose, why didn't that councillor apply for a days leave of absence, his days pay would have been in the form of his allowance..... his reason for the funeral excuse... I'll let you decide that.
As it happens, we now know that the funeral was a spurious and despicable figment of a warped mindset and a simple act of greed resulted in the individual being dismissed from his position for GIM.
I have no idea as to what the cost would be but I would imagine the increased running costs, overtime bill, security, etc etc for multiple evenings per week would add up to quite a substantial amount. There would also be outrage from the public as a result of this I imagine.
Ok I'll try and lay out how I see it. Yes it's fine for the employed to shift swap to attend meetings if they can. Why would it not be? There is sufficient notice and it's a post they stood for knowing the set up. The councillors I've seen int he chamber making an issue of not being able to attend meetings were told the meetings could be held on an evening if needed and still chose not to put themselves forward for committee posts even when the posts should have been filled by independant councillors. I think the timings of the meetings is being used somewhat as a smokescreen.
Quote from: fred c on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
Attempts to justify an increase in councillors allowances here is futile, to many people have have been around for to long to swallow any of that magumba, how many of the ruling group actually work, of those how many 'work' in the community / voluntary / charity sector.
You mention that allowances should be used in lieu of salary if a councillor forgoes his / her primary employment in order to attend to council business, 'that may be the intended purpose' however a point worth mentioning is..... an elected officer of this council, chose to inform his employer that he would be attending a funeral, if it had ben a genuine reason for time off, his employer would in all probability have paid him for that day, if as you claim councillors allowances should be used for such a purpose, why didn't that councillor apply for a days leave of absence, his days pay would have been in the form of his allowance..... his reason for the funeral excuse... I'll let you decide that.
As it happens, we now know that the funeral was a spurious and despicable figment of a warped mindset and a simple act of greed resulted in the individual being dismissed from his position for GIM.
I'm not about to defend something I don't agree with. It was the wrong thing to do and as I have no involvement at all in that I don't see why I would be asked to justify it.
Also I don't know how many work in those sectors, I've not looked into it. Are you suggesting that those sectors don't constitute real work though? That's the implication I got from the 'work' please correct me if I'm wrong. I've sent the amount of work that goes into the voluntary/charity sector, the vast majority of it unpaid, and it is just as demanding than any company.
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
I have no idea as to what the cost would be but I would imagine the increased running costs, overtime bill, security, etc etc for multiple evenings per week would add up to quite a substantial amount. There would also be outrage from the public as a result of this I imagine.
Ok I'll try and lay out how I see it. Yes it's fine for the employed to shift swap to attend meetings if they can. Why would it not be? There is sufficient notice and it's a post they stood for knowing the set up. The councillors I've seen int he chamber making an issue of not being able to attend meetings were told the meetings could be held on an evening if needed and still chose not to put themselves forward for committee posts even when the posts should have been filled by independant councillors. I think the timings of the meetings is being used somewhat as a smokescreen.
Sorry - the only reason I asked about the cost was you said it would cost more than the increase, so I thought you'd researched your facts - sorry my mistake
I'm not aware of any proposal to move meetings to an evening - my understanding it is at the discretion of the chairs of the various committees. I believe that Councillor Thompson made a proposal that 25% of meetings go to evening, but I don't know the outcome of that.
I don't think meeting timing is a smokescreen - so we'll agree to disagree
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
I've sent(seen?) the amount of work that goes into the voluntary/charity sector, the vast majority of it unpaid, and it is just as demanding than any company.
Ah the old chestnut about 'working in the voluntary/charity sector'. The impression is given that any work they do is also 'voluntary' but this is not so. What these thieves fail to explain is 'I have set up a company that works in the Voluntary Sector but naturally I will be paying myself a
big fat salary whilst those who work under me will be the volunteers.
Forget the councillors for a moment, the public also wants to see more meetings held on the evenings. This was the result of one of the council's famous 'consultations' which, in this instance, went badly wrong for them. Did they implement it? No., they only implement the result of consultations if they agree with it.
Quote from: mk1 on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
I've sent(seen?) the amount of work that goes into the voluntary/charity sector, the vast majority of it unpaid, and it is just as demanding than any company.
Ah the old chestnut about 'working in the voluntary/charity sector'. The impression is given that any work they do is also 'voluntary' but this is not so. What these thieves fail to explain is 'I have set up a company that works in the Voluntary Sector but naturally I will be paying myself a big fat salary whilst those who work under me will be the volunteers.
Yes, I seem to remember Wilcox paying herself
£47,000 for her work in the '
voluntary sector'; not to mention her daughter's salary and a whole bunch of other friends and relatives.
I was of course referring to the increase per councillor. I would have no way to research the increase in cost of holding the sessions in the evening. Would you?
MK1: Some of these charities are bigger than most multinationals and need the same levels of skills to manage them. It's also a full time job and the people working in them should receive fair renumeration. The costs are saved on staff which is where the volunteer aspect comes in.
I think if the public want the meetings held on an evening then they should be. Where/when was the consultation held? I've not been consulted so there may need to be a better way to highlight these consultations to the wider pubic.
Quote from: steveL on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
Quote from: mk1 on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
I've sent(seen?) the amount of work that goes into the voluntary/charity sector, the vast majority of it unpaid, and it is just as demanding than any company.
Ah the old chestnut about 'working in the voluntary/charity sector'. The impression is given that any work they do is also 'voluntary' but this is not so. What these thieves fail to explain is 'I have set up a company that works in the Voluntary Sector but naturally I will be paying myself a big fat salary whilst those who work under me will be the volunteers.
Yes, I seem to remember Wilcox paying herself £47,000 for her work in the 'voluntary sector'; not to mention her daughter's salary and a whole bunch of other friends and relatives.
And she was rightly convicted. I'm not 100% up to speed on that but it seems to me she would have done the same regardless of whatever sector she worked in.
You haven't heard about it because the council did everything they could to smother the result afterwards. However, it's been discussed in council when we had the delight of hearing Marjorie James claiming that there would have to be a 'family impact' study before it could be implemented. Council Officers receive lieu time for working out of normal office hours which I'm sure they would welcome as they save such hours up to gain extra holidays.
I see no reason why evening meetings would be any more expensive than those held during the day.
Quote from: steveL on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
I see no reason why evening meetings would be any more expensive than those held during the day.
Extra cost of running the building for more hours and employing staff for additional hours.
Regardless, I have no issue with the meetings being held on an evening or during the day. If I were an elected councillor I would ensure I attend any and all which are relevant to my duties.
I haven't heard about the consultation itself is my point Steve, surely all of the public should have been made aware of it to partake. And if the results support evening meetings then great. Go with that.
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
Quote from: steveL on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
Quote from: mk1 on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
I've sent(seen?) the amount of work that goes into the voluntary/charity sector, the vast majority of it unpaid, and it is just as demanding than any company.
Ah the old chestnut about 'working in the voluntary/charity sector'. The impression is given that any work they do is also 'voluntary' but this is not so. What these thieves fail to explain is 'I have set up a company that works in the Voluntary Sector but naturally I will be paying myself a big fat salary whilst those who work under me will be the volunteers.
Yes, I seem to remember Wilcox paying herself £47,000 for her work in the 'voluntary sector'; not to mention her daughter's salary and a whole bunch of other friends and relatives.
And she was rightly convicted. I'm not 100% up to speed on that but it seems to me she would have done the same regardless of whatever sector she worked in.
The point being that the charities we are taking about are not, by and large, national chariritites with an established reputation. The trick is to create the charity yourself then gain control of the funding and finances - something that Kevin Cranney has done no fewer han 26 times so far.
Alternatively, you can fix it so that the council awards you, as a councillor, a council contract where, as Manager, you can not only receive a juicy salary but also come and go as you please to council meetings or even to deliver burgers for your partner's greasy spoon business.
Danny: then this would be corruption or abuse of the system and could and should be highlighted and investigated.
Steve: With regards to the charities you discuss, I'm not aware of the background there and I was defending the industry not individuals. I'm happy to read over anything you have regarding the specific ones you reference.
That would be like re-writing War and Peace.
Then how am I to learn of them? I'm not trying to suggest you write it all by any means, pointing me in the right direction would be enough.
I'll dig something out as an appropriate introduction
Thanks Steve, I've created a new thread for this purpose so feel free to post here or there.
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 12: PM
Then how am I to learn of them? I'm not trying to suggest you write it all by any means, pointing me in the right direction would be enough.
So you've come on here with more knowledge of the subject.? Might I suggest that you take a random selection of past posts and do the 'research' you appear to expect others to do yourself.
Certainly not. I've joined for discussion and debate. I have asked the members to broaden my knowledge base as they make reference to information I dont have.
Quote from: Username on June 28, 2017, 11: AM
I was of course referring to the increase per councillor. I would have no way to research the increase in cost of holding the sessions in the evening. Would you?
No I wouldn't and why would I? - it was you who made the unqualified statement of costs, I merely asked you to qualify it
Fair enough, much the same position I was in. I have clarified I was referring to the increase per councillor