Watford Borough Council's redundancy bill last year was more than £500,000

Top Watford council bosses were given golden handshakes of more than £70,000 each as the borough’s redundancy bill ballooned to £500,000 last year.

Figures from Watford Borough Council ’s accounts showed two senior officers received £83,000 and £77,435 payoffs respectively when they left the council last year.

Their payoffs came as a total of 24 employees were made redundant at the council between April and April 2011 at a total cost of £559,415.

The latest figures dwarf what the council spent on redundancy the year before - a total of £86,249 in redundancy payouts going to seven employees.

However, Watford’s elected mayor Dorothy Thornhill said the large payouts would save money in the long run as it meant high-earning employees had ended their contracts early.

She said: "We are trying to get down our head count. We are trying to get down the revenue budget and we pay the redundancy out of the capital budget.

"It is almost spending money to save money."

She also said the amount in the payouts was determined according to a national framework.

Figures showed the top redundancy earner at the council last year walked away with £83,044. The council said it could not reveal which worker received the payoff but the Watford Observer understands it went to the council’s former head of property, who left last summer.

The second highest earner was the council’s former executive director of resources, Tricia Taylor, who left in April.

She was given £77,435 in severance, which came on top of her basic pay of £98,906 and pension payments of £26,507, giving her an overall pay package last year of £202,848.

The figures showed that two other workers had redundancy packages of between £40,000 and £60,000 which totalled £94,168 and there were nine redundancy payouts under £40,000 amounting to £232,906.

The rest of the 11 council workers who received redundancy got payouts of under £20,000 totalling £71,862, meaning an average payout of just over £6,500. The latest redundancy figures come after a year when the council has been reorganising its top management structure.

However opposition politicians expressed surprised at how large some of the council payoffs had been. Nigel Bell , the leader of the Labour group, said: "I was surprised at the figure. I knew they had to make quite a few redundancies but I was surprised it was so high."

Councillor Bell said now so much money had been spent on slimming down the number of top officers it was important more were not reappointed at a later date.

He added: "We have to keep an eye on the wage structure."

Mark Jeffery, a spokesman for Watford Borough Council added: "We have been, and are continuing to reduce our costs.

"Last year the Government outlined they were reducing funding to councils by around 30 per cent.

"Reducing the senior number of people working for the council is a key part of our strategy to save money.

"Although there may be one-off redundancy costs, doing this helps us to meet our tough savings targets over the following years. Fortunately we've also been able to ensure we continue to deliver good quality, popular services for local people."

Comments(9)

drunkenduck says...
4:28pm Thu 2 Aug 12

While people are struggling to pay for a roof over their heads & put food on the table. You get greedy Watford council bosses walking away with that sort of money. Then again if it's redundant payment slight different.

But wonder how much money it would cost the tax payer if mayor Dorothy Thornhill would accept if she was forced out of her office?

clarkie750 says...
5:52pm Thu 2 Aug 12

Why am I not surprised Nigel Bell is surprised. His grasp of financial matters is slight at best.

Retlas says...
5:57pm Thu 2 Aug 12

"Figures showed the top redundancy earner at the council last year walked away with £83,044".

I wouldn't earn that in five years!!

If I had that sort of money I perhaps could retire.

Rip off Britain !

Scot Hill says...
10:23pm Thu 2 Aug 12

How could the Head of Property get £83K? He wasn't with the council for five minutes! Perhaps he was paid to go quietly because of some of the disastrous actions taken by the property department?

MaryShabti1 says...
6:48am Fri 3 Aug 12

Why so much when I was made redundant after 11 years service I got 1.5 weeks pay for each year served. The legal minimum. I managed to get a new job and worked there for 2.5 years. Had a nice Xmas gift redundant on 16th dec with half a months pay plus 2 weeks redundancy.
I have had 2 short contracts up to now which do not go towards service and am job hunting. How dare these public servants take such immense hand outs. If its ok for me to get the legal minimum why didn't they get the same? I asked if my council tax could be reduced - NO!!! Pah!!!

Mike Watford says...
9:03am Fri 3 Aug 12

If the council's annual capital budget is £100 million, I guess it's equal to a major large business and therefore it's the going rate for senior people employed in either the private or public sector.
At the end of the day reducing the staff by redundancy, will save us - tax payers - money

Mike Watford says...
11:36am Fri 3 Aug 12

drunkenduck wrote:
While people are struggling to pay for a roof over their heads & put food on the table. You get greedy Watford council bosses walking away with that sort of money. Then again if it's redundant payment slight different. But wonder how much money it would cost the tax payer if mayor Dorothy Thornhill would accept if she was forced out of her office?
It does say redundancies. (Probably national formulas based on salary and years of service).

Elected mayors don't get any redunancy if they get voted out of office - unlike MPs.

Andrew1963 says...
12:07pm Fri 3 Aug 12

Mike Watford wrote:
If the council's annual capital budget is £100 million, I guess it's equal to a major large business and therefore it's the going rate for senior people employed in either the private or public sector. At the end of the day reducing the staff by redundancy, will save us - tax payers - money
The Capital budget is a lot smaller than that. The revenue budget is about the same as a small Tesco. But these comparisons are not valid as districts carry out functions like Housing Benefit administration and simple act as a conduit of central gov money. The fact is the council runs very little nowadays compared to the past, so it is right to reduce the number of executives. This is just the start of the road of abolishing District Councils like Watford. With most services outsourced and few statutory services, it is time to amalgamate Districts into Unitary councils. Two for Hertfordshire, East and West is best. Watford in with Three Rivers, Dacorum Hertsmere and St Albans. West Herts should be based in St Albans as the historic administrative centre and Cathedral City. East Herts centred on Hertford for similar reasons. This will save lots of money but will lead to similar headlines as employers honour the redundancy terms in contracts.

Veritas says...
7:11am Sat 4 Aug 12

clarkie750 wrote:
Why am I not surprised Nigel Bell is surprised. His grasp of financial matters is slight at best.
and yours is better????? you rotund arrogant muppett.

He is questioning why so many high earning executives, something daft Dotty should have been doing a long time ago.

Can't wait to get rid of your side kick
all she does is get her mug shot in the paper, and let her pals claim expenses when not doing a councillors job.

Why do we still have a civic Mayor, Chief executive. lets cut some of those posts.

Whats your pathetic excuse for those posts?

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree