Councillors agree allowance freeze (From Watford Observer)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WO to 80360, or email us
Watford councillors agree allowance freeze
12:30pm Thursday 31st January 2013 in News
By Mike Wright, Chief Reporter
Councillors agree allowance freeze
Watford politicians have voted to freeze their allowances for the next year and to leave it up to individual councillors to choose if they will take a five per cent pay cut.
However the council rejected proposals for a deeper cut in councillor pay and reductions in the mayor’s salary.
The move comes after an independent panel recommended councillors take a voluntary five per cent drop in their allowance to reflect the shrinking size of the council. The panel also recommended the mayor’s £65,000 a year salary be frozen.
At a full council meeting last night, Labour councillors proposed greater cuts of 10 per cent for backbench councillors and 20 per cent in the mayor’s salary and councillors with higher special responsibility allowances.
Elected mayor Dorothy Thornhill rejected the proposals and made an impassioned defence of councillors’ allowances, saying she did not want to go back to the time when the council was run by "bankers and freemasons".
Watford councillors are currently paid a basic allowance of £7,209 a year. Councillors sitting in the ruling cabinet or chairmen of committees get a special responsibility allowance of between £10,815 and £2,884 on top of their basic allowance.
Watford’s elected mayor Dorothy Thornhill receives a basic salary of £65,738 and a £1,000 annual travel allowance.
At last night’s meeting Liberal Democrat cabinet member, Iain Sharpe, attacked the Labour group saying the allowance levels had been set when they controlled the council and frozen every year since.
He said: "They wanted the allowances when they thought there was going to be a Labour mayor. As soon as Labour lost the election they changed face.
"I think the Labour group has been chewing on sour grapes for so long the bitterness has entered their soul."
Steve Johnson, a Conservative councillor for Leggatts, said though councillors were worth the current level of allowance he would be happy to take the five per cent cut if Labour, the largest opposition group, did so first.
The leader of the Green group, Steve Rackett, said his group would be happy to follow if Labour took the cut and said the opposition parties needed to "put their money where their mouth is".
Labour’s Asif Khan said that it was right for the councillors to reduce their own allowances as residents were suffering wage reductions and job losses in the economic downturn.
He said: "Residents are having a torrid time. The economic state is harming them and squeezing them and these people are our residents."
Councillor Khan, who represents Leggatts, added that he would do the job of councillor for free if necessary.
Mayor Thornhill defended the current pay level saying when she first became a councillor she was a divorced mother and would not have been able to do the job without the allowances.
She said it was needed to enable people to become councillors no matter how much they earned.
Mayor Thornhill added: "I don’t want to go back to the time when all councillors were bankers and freemasons who ran the council between lunch and dinner and all the men in here were old grey and wealthy."
In the end proposals for reductions of 10 and 20 per cent were voted down and the proposal for a freeze was voted through by the Liberal Democrat majority.
Comments(10)
The Voice 666
says...
1:32pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Sanity 750
says...
1:34pm Thu 31 Jan 13
mkhan1
says...
2:10pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Roy Stockdill
says...
2:12pm Thu 31 Jan 13
If indeed Mohandas is Cllr Malcolm Meerabux (and I do not yet know the evidence), then perhaps he would be best advised to declare the fact. It prevents accusations of hypocrisy. This is why I have always put my head above the parapet by posting in my own name.
Having said that, I tend to agree with Mohandas that people who offer to become councillors for no payment are not necessarily the best candidates. I've been on many committees in my life and met a fair number of people who were only there because it helped to massage their ego but they didn't actually do very much. I suspect there are those who would like to be councillors for the same reason.
MarsLander
says...
2:20pm Thu 31 Jan 13
The Labour group, knowing there was no chance of success, proposed large pay cuts. That sounds like politicking to me, no sincerity, just posturing.
The solo Tory and the greens, relying on the greed of the Labour councillors called their bluff and said "we'll do it if you do it first".
The Liberals said "The high allowances are all Labours fault and we are happy to keep our noses in the trough thank you very much".
Cllr Khan said "I would do it for free if necessary". As it's not necessary in any sense of the word, those words are pretty empty, aren't they Cllr Khan.
What are we left with?
Every councillor and the Mayor keeps their snouts in our trough whilst trying to elbow the other pigs out of the way with snorts of "it's your fault I'm in the trough in the first place, you forced me in here!".
Not a very edifying spectacle for any councillor or the chief piggy, Mayor Thornhill.
I now dare one councillor or even the chief piggy to take the 5 or 10% cut proposed. It will put pressure on all the others to do the same and we will see those who have any sense of shame and more importantly, those who do not.
As things stand, no councillor has any sense of shame in taking money that an independent body has recommended they should not have.
Greed prevails.
AlbansWoodBear
says...
6:45pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Voluntarily
Roy Stockdill
says...
6:57pm Thu 31 Jan 13
I note David Beckham has just signed today for a French club, Paris St Germain, and announced that he will give all his salary to charity. We will see, won't we?
Mohandas
says...
8:48pm Thu 31 Jan 13
Roy Stockdill wrote:Well said Roy I have sneaking admiration for those who give quietly of their time and money or make a sacrifice and do good without looking to see if someone is watching or wait to see what others are putting in the plate. A genuine giver always feels as if it costs nothing.
I tend to agree that councillors' salaries and expenses should be standardised, but if some feel well-off enough to want to forego their remuneration, then I can see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to. On the other hand, why should those who don't want to be pilloried?
I note David Beckham has just signed today for a French club, Paris St Germain, and announced that he will give all his salary to charity. We will see, won't we?
MarsLander
says...
7:31am Fri 1 Feb 13
AlbansWoodBear wrote:Is this true? If so, he or she should be honoured in these pages with their name.
I understand that a lone LibDem Councillor has, from last year, after the same debate, did voluntarily take a 5% cut - fair play to that Councillor but it comes down to their personal circumstances.... this matter is well worn now, and rather than this annual disgraceful farce, there should be an independent group/body that has a good look at it, and then set it for say four years.
Voluntarily
Can the WO investigate and publish details of who does not claim their full allowance and by how much?
Mohandas says...
1:03pm Thu 31 Jan 13
President of Uruguay has earned the nickname of the “poorest,” or the “most generous,” president in the world after revealing that he donates 90 percent of his earnings, to charitable causes.
The role model above should help. If you really believe in what you are doing, get on with it and stop this yearly round of gesture politics. Perhaps you could all individually compete for who offers the best bargain based deal and get some more publicity. Just forget about quality for at election time out of the woodwork comes an awful lot of these paper candidates. What happens if you get a candidate who says 'I'll do it for nothing' against a candidate who is poor, does he or she get the job? At least that way you are not paying peanuts to get ....