Councillors vote themselves a 26% rise.

[park381]

Originally Posted by Gayle Knight

the point remains that the council is going to be full of people who have money already and time on their hands - retired people

Dare I say it (at the risk of loosing more karma, if you do please sign your name) Why not put an upper age limit on a person standing for council that would sort that bit out

[WillowTheWhisp]

Originally Posted by park381

OK to who ever deducted the karma, may be you don't like my post, but please have the guts to sign your name

Which post didn't they like?

[Gayle]

I'm not saying that retired people aren't capable of representing us, just that the council should reflect the population of the town and shouldn't be weighted towards retired people just becaause they are the only ones who can afford to do it.

[park381]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

Which post didn't they like?

Think it was post #32, sooner someone have a go on here and reply to a post if they don't like what I've posted.

[park381]

Originally Posted by Gayle Knight

I'm not saying that retired people aren't capable of representing us, just that the council should reflect the population of the town and shouldn't be weighted towards retired people just becaause they are the only ones who can afford to do it.

Be good though eh !! think there would be a great outcry from certain councillors Serious the council should be made up of a good cross section of age groups, youth and experience.

If there were an age limit, then I would not be able to stand for council.........shame

[Doug]

I don’t agree that age limits should be put on public posts…..If local councils are to be representative of the community then we must have representation across the age group of the community. I agree that too many wealthy people get themselves involved for the wrong reasons; all too often councils are treated as private clubs with jobs for the boy’s. But all too often it’s us that put them there.

[park381]

Originally Posted by Doug

I don’t agree that age limits should be put on public posts…..If local councils are to be representative of the community then we must have representation across the age group of the community. I agree that too many wealthy people get themselves involved for the wrong reasons; all too often councils are treated as private clubs with jobs for the boy’s. But all too often it’s us that put them there.

Thank you Doug.
Fair comment, any representative committee, council should be made up of a good cross section of age groups,backgrounds, and all should be given a chance to have their say at meetings.

[Graham Jones]

Originally Posted by Doug

I don’t agree that age limits should be put on public posts…..If local councils are to be representative of the community then we must have representation across the age group of the community. I agree that too many wealthy people get themselves involved for the wrong reasons; all too often councils are treated as private clubs with jobs for the boy’s. But all too often it’s us that put them there.

There are several arguments here. I cut my hours at work by 10 and lose £4,500 gross per annum [plus opportunities to work o/t at x1.5] So call it £5,000. I get £3,200 allowance so I am out of pocket. I do about 20+ hours a week for the Council. Its not particulalry hard work either, lets face it listening to residents concerns on a sunny day beats a production line... It is worked out that councillors do an average of 16 hours a week at minimum wage and that comes to just over £4,000. Hence doing away with the 25% voluntary rule justifies the move from £3,200 to £4,000 keeping to the minimum wage. Thats the pro argument.

Now the anti-argument. Every £ spent on allowances comes from somewhere else. The Council is massivly in debt and making severe front line cuts. The Council is badly run so this is a reward for poor perfomance. The 16 hours are not a normal 16 hours job, quite contrary, they are by comparison easy. Hyndburn has Britains youngest councillor and letting a secret out, Labour have 3 or 4 more lined up to see if they can get selected/elected so the wealthy retired argument does not stand up either. The minimum wage argument falls by the wayside because half of all councillors get special on top allowances which have all risen by 26%. Only half are getting the full 16 hour minimum wage £4,000. The other half are much further up the pay scale than the minimum wage. The minimum wage also falls because 1) you dont enter the Council for money and a job 2) Some councillors dont do 16 hours, or anywhere near and also get speciall extra allowances. 3) Hyndburn BC can never ever pay a living wage to attract in councillors, it will always be for civic pride

Voting yourself - with no opposition - a pay rise from the pockets of residents grossly disproportionate to their income growth is immoral. Picking July's meeting to bury bad news cuz it is furthest from the next election and a lot of people are on holiday and papers sales down is deceitful. An outside independent body of 5 members recomended 2.95% - with no justification for 26% in their opinion. That report was binned. It will cost £50,000-£60,000 pa and after tax and NI probably some £20-£25,000 will simply go to Gordon Brown. Just about the amount saved in tax when hiving on the management of Town Halls and Civic Theatres in to the private voluntary unaccountable profit motivated sector.

I now need to decide how I wont profit from this increase... Option 1 dont take it and leave it to be spent by the Council on services. Option 2 take it [be taxed and receive half] and give it to the Labour Party election fund until PB is removed??? Option 3 - as 2 but give it to charity.

[Gayle]

Option 2 sounds the best idea, Graham, that way you can benefit the prospective candidates for the next election.

Will other councillors be as noble as you?

[WillowTheWhisp]

Thank you for the insight into things Graham. The level of increase stinks. It can't be justified. Let's hope there are others who feel as you do.

I agree that option 2 sounds the best.

[Doug]

Just hang on here. I may have misinterpreted what your saying Graham, but I don’t believe that an individual should lose income in the course of serving the community in this manner. You shouldn’t be seen as volunteers working for expenses. Working for the principle of Civic pride is all very nice but its business acumen and social foresight that’s needed to grow communities. If you are to respond to the needs of your community you need to be viable and if that means accepting an income that covers your losses and allows you to develop as a councillor so be it. We need integrity, openness and compassion from our representatives not martyrs. If the income is there and it can be used to fight for what you believe in then use it…….If I have got this wrong the ignore me.

[WillowTheWhisp]

I think the problem is that HBC are always pleading poverty when it comes to finding money for anything else.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by WillowTheWhisp

I think the problem is that HBC are always pleading poverty when it comes to finding money for anything else.

That might be due to the lack of acumen and short-sightedness of those in control. That said if your taking these people on you also need to be able to sustain yourself and your family. Nothing comes cost free in this society. If whatever income you receive allows you to continue in a manner that improves the borough without depleting your standard of living and social standing, the greater chance you have of meeting your objectives. People will soon forget about these increases if they begin to see benefits.

[park381]

Graham,when you say you cut your hours at work by 10, does this mean normal working hours, and is this done with the blessing of your employer, or are we talking a reduction in overtime.

[Graham Jones]

Originally Posted by park381

Graham,when you say you cut your hours at work by 10, does this mean normal working hours, and is this done with the blessing of your employer, or are we talking a reduction in overtime.

I cut my hours an agreement with my employer because I was worn out all the time... I have a full time contract so any extra hours [when I was not doing council business] was paid at normal 1.5x rate [yes some people only get 1.25x and salaried staff get nothing].

IN answer to Doug's very good point, many councillors receive a top up allowance so for their 16 hours [if they actually do them] a week they now get £10,500. I still maintain, going listening to officers, chipping in the odd idea, going back to residents and listening what they want and making a few phone calls is NOT work as I know it.