WALTHAM FOREST: £1.2m spent on councillors (From This Is Local London)

As you can tell by how well the borough is run it is money well spent!

Presumably this includes the sofas allegedly provided in the committee rooms for Cllr Pye to recline on. I'm rather surprised there isn't a cost against someone to be on hand to peel the grapes.

£1.2m seems a lot, but I do not think its poor value.

Also, yes I do pay tax in WF and no I dont like the Lab controlled council!

Democratic society requires local councillors. Being a good cllr requires a big investment of time and effort.

So why not provide a little renumiration for service?!

I do believe cllrs remuniration should be at a low level which emphaises the public service nature of the role.

But moaning about cllrs is like shooting fish in the barrel for mainly bitter peps who hate paying tax, full stop.

btw:
50k for cllr Robbins for WAY too much for a cllr to earn from public service!

small beer when compared to the amount of expenses MPs claimed

woggle wrote:
£1.2m seems a lot, but I do not think its poor value. Also, yes I do pay tax in WF and no I dont like the Lab controlled council! Democratic society requires local councillors. Being a good cllr requires a big investment of time and effort. So why not provide a little renumiration for service?! I do believe cllrs remuniration should be at a low level which emphaises the public service nature of the role. But moaning about cllrs is like shooting fish in the barrel for mainly bitter peps who hate paying tax, full stop.

I think you put your finger on the nub of the issue, woggle, when you say "being a good Councillor". Is there any evaluation process to determine whether Councillors are delivering value for money? Is their pay performance related? No, of course not. So are we supposed just to pay up and shut up? "A little remuneration for service" is precisely what Councillors used to get - out-of-pocket expenses for their time given freely in the service of their community. The idea behind paying them a salary was that we got a berrter calibre of representation but what we ended up with was many of the same old duffers being paid handsomely from the public purse for being ineffectual. Now that they are paid between £10-50k I think we have a perfect right to ask whether this represents value for money and the Council has a public duty to demonstrate this against an objective set of criteria.

Pamella wrote:
small beer when compared to the amount of expenses MPs claimed

But is this the sum total of their expenses? Do they not claim for things over and above their allowances?

LEYTONOLDBOY wrote:

Pamella wrote: small beer when compared to the amount of expenses MPs claimed

But is this the sum total of their expenses? Do they not claim for things over and above their allowances?

Good question. Some of the councillors do seem to like celebratory dinners.

And what is the position regarding pensions?

Sam Hain wrote:

woggle wrote:
£1.2m seems a lot, but I do not think its poor value. Also, yes I do pay tax in WF and no I dont like the Lab controlled council! Democratic society requires local councillors. Being a good cllr requires a big investment of time and effort. So why not provide a little renumiration for service?! I do believe cllrs remuniration should be at a low level which emphaises the public service nature of the role. But moaning about cllrs is like shooting fish in the barrel for mainly bitter peps who hate paying tax, full stop.

I think you put your finger on the nub of the issue, woggle, when you say "being a good Councillor". Is there any evaluation process to determine whether Councillors are delivering value for money? Is their pay performance related? No, of course not. So are we supposed just to pay up and shut up? "A little remuneration for service" is precisely what Councillors used to get - out-of-pocket expenses for their time given freely in the service of their community. The idea behind paying them a salary was that we got a berrter calibre of representation but what we ended up with was many of the same old duffers being paid handsomely from the public purse for being ineffectual. Now that they are paid between £10-50k I think we have a perfect right to ask whether this represents value for money and the Council has a public duty to demonstrate this against an objective set of criteria.

"I think you put your finger on the nub of the issue, woggle, when you say "being a good Councillor". Is there any evaluation process to determine whether Councillors are delivering value for money? Is their pay performance related?"

Every 4 years you can vote them out. You can see them weekly through their surgeries to challenge their performance. They are obligated to respond to you if you have queries. The FOI means you can ask for information to back it up.

Yes, you can challenge their performance. Do most people? No...

There is no pension for a councillor since they are not employed.

Hoopster wrote:
There is no pension for a councillor since they are not employed.

So you might think. Are there any councillors who can verify that categorically, that there is no way they can benefit from it? I seem to recall being told something different by a councillor in the past.

Techno2 wrote:

Hoopster wrote:
There is no pension for a councillor since they are not employed.

So you might think. Are there any councillors who can verify that categorically, that there is no way they can benefit from it? I seem to recall being told something different by a councillor in the past.

Councillors are entitled to join the Local Government Pension Scheme just like employees. In which case they and the Council will make contributions to the scheme.

Robert19 wrote:

Techno2 wrote:

Hoopster wrote: There is no pension for a councillor since they are not employed.

So you might think. Are there any councillors who can verify that categorically, that there is no way they can benefit from it? I seem to recall being told something different by a councillor in the past.

Councillors are entitled to join the Local Government Pension Scheme just like employees. In which case they and the Council will make contributions to the scheme.

Thanks for clarifying that. And how generous is this scheme?

Difficult to say Techno2 in detail but employees would pay around 6% of salary and employers around 12%, but every local authority has its own scheme which varies between each of them. It is a final pension system. Until recently councillors would have benefitted minimally as their 'earnings' would not have been much and expenses don't count towards pensions.

Robert19 wrote:
Difficult to say Techno2 in detail but employees would pay around 6% of salary and employers around 12%, but every local authority has its own scheme which varies between each of them. It is a final pension system. Until recently councillors would have benefitted minimally as their 'earnings' would not have been much and expenses don't count towards pensions.

But can some of them, say, have an allowance of 30K as their final year and do quite well, despite not having contributed all that much?

You're so right, hoopster, and I have held councillors to account on several occasions, even once going to the then CEO, Andrew Kilburn. But you need to be doggedly persisten and most people haven't got the time or the inclination. I was fobbed off with a bland response from the CEO and gave up in the end. What we need I think is some standard, objective, assessment of performance. This may already exist via London Councils or the Audit Office (did I read somehere that the latter was going to be scrapped?). Perhaps Robert19 can advise?

I've just Googled the National Audit Commission and found this on the Independent's website: "The official watchdog responsible for ensuring local councils deliver value for money is to be scrapped, it was announced today. Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles said the Audit Commission had "lost its way" and would be disbanded." Something else for Cllr Davis to ponder on, perhaps.

Councillors are supposed to attend a few meetings each year, hold regular 'surgeries and respond to residents' queries. In reality, they can get away with doing nothing for the large sums of money they receive. I hardly bother to write to my local councillors any more as my queries are usually ignored. Some of the best-paid are the worst for ignoring the residents. No wonder people give up.