Full Council - 22nd September 2011

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

A full council meeting is the supreme local legislative authority within the borough.

6 full council meetings each year = 18 hours.

On average, how much does each councillor take home for his/her services?

What does this translate into at an hourly rate, given 18 hours per annum?

I've got to defend them on this one. Most (not all) Councillors that I know work really hard for a pittance. I think it's just under £5k a year for the basic allowance. They're on call 24/7 and I know that they get called at all hours of the day. They spend a lot of time at other committee meetings and community meetings and they spend a lot of time working with the officers on various issues. I'd say they don't even make the minimum wage if you want to calculate their actual hourly rate.

[davemac]

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

We only have 6 full Council meetings a year now. If anyone wants to see what we get up to they can always come and sit in the gallery.

I did allow a surplus of meetings to insert specialy convened meetings and meetings of special interest

[Tealeaf]

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

Attending full Council meetings is very small part of the work Councillors do.

I'm fully aware of that.

Nevertheless, there is a parallel with the role of an MP.

Sitting in the chamber, asking questions and going through the division lobby is only a small part of the job. Attending committees, dealing with constituent's problems, lobbying for their constituency interests and other roles besides. That is the same role as a councillor, except swap ward for constituency.

The House, however, sits 5 days a week for the best part of a year.

Don't you think, therefore, that the Borough would be better served if our elected local representatives were to meet in full a little bit longer than 18 hours a year?

Here's a little sum.

MP's salary = £65K. Assuming the house meets fully 150 days a year, 8 hours = 1200hrs. £65K divided by 1200 = £54pds per hour.

I'll guess at £8,000pds average allowance for Councillors (I could be way out)

£8,000pds divided by 18 = £444pds per hour.

Draw your own conclusion.

[Whittaker]

There really is a misconception that councillors get a lot of money for doing nothing and I am assuming this is what you are getting at most councillors work in full time jobs and then do another 25 - 50 hours per week on average for their wards and the Hyndburn council responsibilities also the calculation has no comparison with the real life of a councillor so I would please make your mind up after checking the daily routine of a local councillor and you are well served in Hyndburn by councillors who work hard on all political sides to help the residents of Hyndburn get the best from the area I have been in this job a short time and have had my eyes opened by the long days that most councillors work for the area so please try and get the facts together before trying to compare and coming up with the wrong answers . we are ellected memebers and beleive what you like but we all work hard to do the best for the areas we represent and "wages" dont come into it we get an allowance and i can tell you in most cases this would not pay for the telephone bill per year . I am not moaning just trying to get accross that people need to get ALL the facts before having a go at the people who are tring to make Hyndburn a better place to live

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Whittaker

There really is a misconception that councillors get a lot of money for doing nothing and I am assuming this is what you are getting at most councillors work in full time jobs and then do another 25 - 50 hours per week on average for their wards and the Hyndburn council responsibilities also the calculation has no comparison with the real life of a councillor so I would please make your mind up after checking the daily routine of a local councillor and you are well served in Hyndburn by councillors who work hard on all political sides to help the residents of Hyndburn get the best from the area I have been in this job a short time and have had my eyes opened by the long days that most councillors work for the area so please try and get the facts together before trying to compare and coming up with the wrong answers . we are ellected memebers and beleive what you like but we all work hard to do the best for the areas we represent and "wages" dont come into it we get an allowance and i can tell you in most cases this would not pay for the telephone bill per year . I am not moaning just trying to get accross that people need to get ALL the facts before having a go at the people who are tring to make Hyndburn a better place to live

Doesn't come across as 'moaning' at all.

More interesting, as why you wanted to be a councillor, and some of what it entails, that people don't necessarily see.

[Whittaker]

I wanted to become a councillor because I hope to be able to make a difference I have been in business for quite a lot of years and have learnt all sorts over the years which I hope to be able to use in the council world my feelings on councillors are they ALL bring something to the table no matter what their political persuasion however what I do feel is that where there are positions on committees within the council they should be filled with the best man or women for the job and not just with the people whom are in political power at the time and this is something that I have tried to get across but looks like it may take a little more discussing and understanding the reasons why, to explain quickly if we had a committee on planning someone with planning experience who holds a council seat should be considered first so that their vast experience can be used when that committee meets when it comes to committees in council political persuasion should really not be important it should be the best person for the job (in my opinion )

[Tealeaf]

Oi! Whittaker! Have you ever heard of a bloke by the name of Aristophanes of Byzantium? He's the guy who invented punctuation, including the full stop, or period as the Yanks call it. Perhaps you should check up on him and on punctuation because I have rarely read, in either content or language, such drivel as your last post. I hope that you perform somewhat better in your role as a borough councillor than you have just done in this pathetic attempt to justify it.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by Gayle

How on earth can it cost £40k to record 6 meetings a year and bung them online?

Allowing for an officers time to be at the meetings - say 4hrs a time - 24 hours.
Then adding a couple of days each time for editing and putting online - 8 hours x 12 - 76 hours.
So 100 hours officer time at £10 maximum = £1,000.

Buying a fairly decent camera and tripod - £1,000.

If it was to be put on the council's own website I suppose you could add something for extra bandwidth but you could stick them on youtube at no cost.

All in all, you could do it easily for under £3k, I reckon.

Proper webcasting requires just a little more than £1,000 equipment to do it properly and to be honest if we're going to do it at all then I want it to look as near to televised parliamentary debates as possible.

Sound would be the major hurdle as the room would have to be wired up properly and I don't envy anyone that job, particularly when it comes to editing.

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

I'll guess at £8,000pds average allowance for Councillors (I could be way out)

£8,000pds divided by 18 = £444pds per hour.

Draw your own conclusion.

I sit here quietly amused by the public perception, if this post is anything to go by.

Jaysay has summed everything up, I'll refer back to his posts.

£444 per hour.....when's the next election?

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

Proper webcasting requires just a little more than £1,000 equipment to do it properly and to be honest if we're going to do it at all then I want it to look as near to televised parliamentary debates as possible.

Sound would be the major hurdle as the room would have to be wired up properly and I don't envy anyone that job, particularly when it comes to editing.

Fair enough. Perhaps I was being a little simplistic. But, I would be interested to know how they reckon it's going to cost £40k a year. Any equipment installation would be a one off. I disagree that the whole room would need to be wired up. I'm fairly sure that the houses of Parliament don't have the whole room wired up, just a mic at each side for each speaker.

As for the Officer's time - I can't see how I could be that far out. Even if I'm being ridiculously generous, I can't see how the cost would be over £10k.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Here's a little sum.

MP's salary = £65K. Assuming the house meets fully 150 days a year, 8 hours = 1200hrs. £65K divided by 1200 = £54pds per hour.

I'll guess at £8,000pds average allowance for Councillors (I could be way out)

£8,000pds divided by 18 = £444pds per hour.

Draw your own conclusion.

I think your figures are a bit out.
Here are my sums.

MPs salary = £65k. Assuming they work 60 hour weeks = £20 per hour.
Councillor's expenses = £5k. Assuming they work about 25 hours a week = £4.80 per hour.

Plus, that doesn't factor in MPs expenses which would bump things up and the out of hours that Councillor's do which would reduce their hourly rate.

Hard working Councillors also pay a lot of out their own pockets that they can't claim back - for example every time they go somewhere they are fleeced for raffle tickets and donations. I suspect they're usually out of pocket!!!!

[Whittaker]

Originally Posted by Tealeaf

Oi! Whittaker! Have you ever heard of a bloke by the name of Aristophanes of Byzantium? He's the guy who invented punctuation, including the full stop, or period as the Yanks call it. Perhaps you should check up on him and on punctuation because I have rarely read, in either content or language, such drivel as your last post. I hope that you perform somewhat better in your role as a borough councillor than you have just done in this pathetic attempt to justify it.

I do apologise. I am typing on the run. very busy you see. i will try better. please do not take a tone like that i was merely joining in a debate on how councillors work hard and your obvious misconception that we are the best paid people in the world...(full stop)

[Ken Moss]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Fair enough. Perhaps I was being a little simplistic. But, I would be interested to know how they reckon it's going to cost £40k a year. Any equipment installation would be a one off. I disagree that the whole room would need to be wired up. I'm fairly sure that the houses of Parliament don't have the whole room wired up, just a mic at each side for each speaker.

As for the Officer's time - I can't see how I could be that far out. Even if I'm being ridiculously generous, I can't see how the cost would be over £10k.

I can only go by the quotes we have been given for webcasting other councils and that is the average figure. It may well be less than that for HBC but we'd have to look at what potential bills we might be facing.

Parliament is wired up like a Christmas tree and during full debates I imagine the sound engineer really earns his money because someone will have to operate the console and make sure that the right microphone is being recorded otherwise you'd get a real hash. Unless you also had a vision mixer you'd also have a hell of a job editing as each council session goes on a least three hours and you'd need at least three cameras. Bear in mind that this is in my field of work and you'd need someone who knew what they were doing, not just decent equipment.

I'm keen on webcasting but all the gear and no idea wouldn't make for very good viewing.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Ken Moss

I can only go by the quotes we have been given for webcasting other councils and that is the average figure. It may well be less than that for HBC but we'd have to look at what potential bills we might be facing.

Parliament is wired up like a Christmas tree and during full debates I imagine the sound engineer really earns his money because someone will have to operate the console and make sure that the right microphone is being recorded otherwise you'd get a real hash. Unless you also had a vision mixer you'd also have a hell of a job editing as each council session goes on a least three hours and you'd need at least three cameras. Bear in mind that this is in my field of work and you'd need someone who knew what they were doing, not just decent equipment.

I'm keen on webcasting but all the gear and no idea wouldn't make for very good viewing.

I appreciate that you are in that area of business and undoubtedly, you would want the quality and effect to be topnotch i.e. the equivalent of a high quality TV broadcast. However, what is being suggested is that it could be done as a simple webcast, with a fixed camera and only the speakers mic'd up.

Editing would then be straightforward as it would be a case of breaking it down into manageable chunks and posting onto youtube.

We're not asking for high quality TV drama, we're suggesting that we get the content of the meetings made more public.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Gayle

I appreciate that you are in that area of business and undoubtedly, you would want the quality and effect to be topnotch i.e. the equivalent of a high quality TV broadcast. However, what is being suggested is that it could be done as a simple webcast, with a fixed camera and only the speakers mic'd up.

Editing would then be straightforward as it would be a case of breaking it down into manageable chunks and posting onto youtube.

We're not asking for high quality TV drama, we're suggesting that we get the content of the meetings made more public.

Exactly.

People will tune in perhaps because they can't attend in person.

They won't expect, or need to see some epic cinematic masterpiece.