WALTHAM FOREST: Row over town hall bonuses
3:26pm Friday 10th February 2012 in Where I Live By Daniel Binns
Waltham Forest Town Hall.
DETAILS of bonuses paid to a member of council staff cannot be revealed because the information may invade their privacy, the authority has claimed.
Freedom of Information campaigner Jeremy Ginnerly asked for details on any bonus payouts made by Waltham Forest Council, but it refused to disclose the figures.
According to a correspondence published on the www.whatdotheyknow.com website, the authority claimed such information would breach the Data Protection Act.
Tessa Mapley, of the council's HR department, said that the request for bonus payments listed by employment grade levels might lead to the identification of a member of staff.
She wrote: "While I clearly recognise a strong public interest in favour of openness and transparency by the council, this does not override other considerations...in particular the expectation of privacy by the data subjects and the need to avoid causing damage or distress to individuals in making the disclosure."
Under a "Single Status" employment agreement in 2007, the council said it would no longer make bonus payments to employees.
However the authority's response to Mr Ginnerly's request states "There is one employee for whom the agreement has not yet been implemented and that employee continues to receive a bonus payment."
Mr Ginnerly appealed the council's decision not to disclose further details.
He said he did not require the person's job title, and would be satisfied with information on their level within the council and salary grade.
He said: "As employees funded by the public purse it cannot be fairly stated that there is no expectation of public disclosure."
He added: "I suggest that the individual's rights of privacy, afforded under the Human Rights Act article 8, are outweighed by the Article 10 right to freedom of expression."
A council review published yesterday (Thursday February 9) upheld the decision not to disclose the information as "reasonable and appropriate" but said he can now appeal to the Government's Information Commissioner.
Mr Ginnerly made the same Freedom of Information request to other London councils such as Newham and Enfield, but they said they do not pay bonuses to staff.
Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Twitter
Click here to follow the Waltham Forest Guardian on Facebook
Comments(28)
Brisbane
says...
3:57pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Mr Omneo
says...
4:19pm Fri 10 Feb 12
What I find interesting from the wording is the way it seems that a bonus payment is an automatic and annual entitlement.
Back in ye olden dayes when I worked in companies that 'occasionally' paid bonuses to staff, it was for work done that was considered over and above the call of duty, not something on which you could rely upon.
I wonder what contract of employment Cllr Robbins is on?
waltham
says...
4:42pm Fri 10 Feb 12
tjw422
says...
5:03pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Am I totally wrong, but wasn't that part of the main idea of the public right to FOI? This council continues to be scandalous.
Sam Hain
says...
6:00pm Fri 10 Feb 12
SpursSupporter1
says...
8:18pm Fri 10 Feb 12
ogeoid
says...
8:35pm Fri 10 Feb 12
om for helping to highlight this. I think if the single bonus recipient is so worried about his privacy he should do the right thing and give his bonus back.
Mr Omneo
says...
10:15pm Fri 10 Feb 12
Sam Hain wrote:Thanks for clearing that up Sam.
In answer to your question about Cllr Robbins' contract of employment, Mr Omneo, this from the Directgov website might help: "Councillors are not paid a salary or wages, but they are entitled to allowances and expenses to cover some of the costs of carrying out their public duties. They are not council employees. The elected councillors provide the policies, and then paid employees (council officers) put them into practice." In short, I think the answer is none.
mdj
says...
12:02am Sat 11 Feb 12
Sam, tell us how it works when the officials are former Council Leaders, or drinking chums of the present one?
Don't Give Up
says...
10:11am Sat 11 Feb 12
Walthamster
says...
12:35pm Sat 11 Feb 12
Mr Omneo wrote:The councillors are, however, paid massive 'allowances' -- salaries in all but name. Last time I checked the leader got more than £50,000 a year and the lowest-paid councillor got a basic £10,000.
Sam Hain wrote:Thanks for clearing that up Sam.
In answer to your question about Cllr Robbins' contract of employment, Mr Omneo, this from the Directgov website might help: "Councillors are not paid a salary or wages, but they are entitled to allowances and expenses to cover some of the costs of carrying out their public duties. They are not council employees. The elected councillors provide the policies, and then paid employees (council officers) put them into practice." In short, I think the answer is none.
Most councillors get 'allowances' of around £25,000, which is the same as the average wage in Waltham Forest.
Unlike a job, though, they don't have to do anything except attend a few meetings a year. So the laziest ones are getting thousands of pounds a year for a few hours 'work' a year.
And of course this also leaves time to do a full-time paid job. A nice extra income, for anyone with no conscience!
Janet1
says...
2:20pm Sat 11 Feb 12
When she was later bumped up to a much higher grade without the higher-grade job having been advertised, and the council said this was allowable because it was only a small promotion, the letter I'd been sent in 2007 proved this was not true.
So go for it, Jeremy Ginnerly! This is exactly what FoI legislation is for. Good luck to you.
UKIP-local
says...
10:50am Sun 12 Feb 12
It is clearly better to reward those who perform better rather than increase salaries and wages across the board, but "bonuses" have become a hate word. Miliband and his media friends decided that and Cameron was too weak to argue against it.
And their demand that bonuses should take account of extraneous factors, such as the opinion of Miliband, cannot be done lawfully because the rights brigade have made discretionary bonuses a thing of the past - they are new treated by the courts as conditional salary and must be objectively determined.
What we have seen is politically inspired breaches of legal contracts in the private sector and concealment of payments in the public sector. Welcome to a banana republic.
Walthamster
says...
4:06pm Sun 12 Feb 12
Walthamster wrote:I'm talking about councillors' allowances in Waltham Forest, not in general. Needless to say, Waltham Forest councillors pay themselves way above the national average.
Mr Omneo wrote:The councillors are, however, paid massive 'allowances' -- salaries in all but name. Last time I checked the leader got more than £50,000 a year and the lowest-paid councillor got a basic £10,000.
Sam Hain wrote:Thanks for clearing that up Sam.
In answer to your question about Cllr Robbins' contract of employment, Mr Omneo, this from the Directgov website might help: "Councillors are not paid a salary or wages, but they are entitled to allowances and expenses to cover some of the costs of carrying out their public duties. They are not council employees. The elected councillors provide the policies, and then paid employees (council officers) put them into practice." In short, I think the answer is none.
Most councillors get 'allowances' of around £25,000, which is the same as the average wage in Waltham Forest.
Unlike a job, though, they don't have to do anything except attend a few meetings a year. So the laziest ones are getting thousands of pounds a year for a few hours 'work' a year.
And of course this also leaves time to do a full-time paid job. A nice extra income, for anyone with no conscience!
Sam Hain
says...
4:36pm Sun 12 Feb 12
mdj
says...
5:14pm Sun 12 Feb 12
'Retainer', perhaps? Or to revert to a more antique expression,'Livery and maintenance' - turning up to vote as instructed being the extremity of exertion for some?
SPotts
says...
7:18pm Sun 12 Feb 12
mdj
says...
9:14pm Sun 12 Feb 12
I don't imagine you're alone in this surmise.
Let's remember that Mr Esom was the only candidate interviewed in person after the Strong Leader, in his very own words, had a 'quiet word' with the two remaining candidates on the shortlist, who then withdrew. The Council Leader having already been the direct cause of the departure of the previous Chief Exec, who left with approx £350k. of our money because of the 'breakdown in working relationship' between him and the Leader. Since the Council's own briefing documents for the secret meeting that cleared the payoff agreed that were no grounds for dismissing the Chief Executive, one could be forgiven for asking why it was not rather the Council Leader's job to resign.
So we already have clear proof that Mr Esom is something of a Favourite Son in the hierarchy. Would this be because of what he knows? Or who he knows? Or what he knows about who he knows?
Walthamster
says...
10:43pm Sun 12 Feb 12
Sam Hain wrote:Painfully true!
Technically, Walthamster, I beieve councillors' 'allowances' are classed as a stipend. I was amused to note the definition of a stipend on Wikepedia includes the following line; "It is often distinct from a wage or a salary because it does not necessarily represent payment for work performed." I think we could have told them that!
NT
says...
9:50am Mon 13 Feb 12
All three!!
tjw422
says...
5:35pm Mon 13 Feb 12
fabster
says...
6:32pm Mon 13 Feb 12
However when the situation is one where the Council is consistently rated as a 'rotten borough' by Private Eye, it's modus operandi brought to question by independent reports & investigations with claims of rife corruption, failure to comply with procurement procedures, mishandled funds, missing meeting minutes, shady gifting of publicly-owned land to dubious bedfellows & unaccounted monies vanishing, all the while awarding themselves more power & fancier titles, can it blame us residents from wanting to know how much bonus they are being paid for failing to deliver.
It's a shame as there are a few decent Councillors in the borough who try & want to do the right thing. But they are a minority & more often than not, get steam rolled by the more powerful (others may say bullying) corrupt bunch & their esteemed Leader who have had it cushy for too long & who fire or de-list anyone who asks inconvenient questions.
longtermstower
says...
6:33pm Wed 15 Feb 12
alex77
says...
9:27pm Wed 15 Feb 12
SPotts
says...
10:25pm Wed 15 Feb 12
longtermstower
says...
12:32pm Thu 16 Feb 12
Walthamster
says...
12:56pm Thu 16 Feb 12
As you say, other councils in low-income areas aren't in such a mess.
And never forget the savage cuts Waltham Forest council was making in 2006 to 2007, while the economy was booming!
Libraries, classes, museum and gallery hours, public buildings -- it felt as if the place was being closed down around us.
And they were sacking specialist staff, proper specialists such as trained librarians and museum staff, pretending everything could be done by untrained workers. No, but the low-grade ones are easier and cheaper to sack now!
There's plenty to blame this government for. But don't let Waltham Forest council blame the government for the council's own failings.
mdj says...
3:33pm Fri 10 Feb 12