Taxpayers will have to shell out an extra £10,000 to pay for extra perks for a handful of West Berkshire councillors.

The Tory administration has added five new committees in recent years, and an independent expenses panel has recommended that they get an extra bonus on top of the basic £6,000 a year councillor ‘pay’, due to an increase in meetings.

Councillors already cost local taxpayers £500,000 a year in expenses – equivalent to a 1% council tax rise.

Councillors meet on Thursday to discuss the issue.

Lets pay them properly - otherwise pay peanuts get monkeys.  However, if we had quality we wouldn't need quantity. Do that and potentially there is a lower cost overall.  Oh well, that won't happen.

Up to 6 grand a year? Seriously, checkout staff in supermarkets get paid more.

Isn't it about time we started paying the people who make the big decisions in West Berkshire a decent wage that doesn't exclude many people from standing for election?

Quoted from user23.3

Up to 6 grand a year? Seriously, checkout staff in supermarkets get paid more.

Isn't it about time we started paying the people who make the big decisions in West Berkshire a decent wage that doesn't exclude many people from standing for election?

Being a Councillor is not a full time job - most of them have those as well. Most, if not all of the rest are pensioners.

Do we really want to go down the road of full time local politicians?

We could reduce that budget by getting rid of the party structure.

Quoted from brian

We could reduce that budget by getting rid of the party structure.

Banning political parties might not be the best move.

Quoted from user23.3

Banning political parties might not be the best move.

Why is that then ??

Quoted from user23.3

Up to 6 grand a year? Seriously, checkout staff in supermarkets get paid more.

Isn't it about time we started paying the people who make the big decisions in West Berkshire a decent wage that doesn't exclude many people from standing for election?

But they're not the people who make the 'big decisions' are they? They're there to rubberstamp what highly paid officials want. The 'lay' aspect is important, but when done badly just leads to loads of thickos having the true impact of things (ie green meanies, Park Way delays) examined.

I don't know how the Tories have the nerve to cut back on planners, admin staff etc, and pay themselves more!

Quoted from brian

Why is that then ??

Banning political parties can often be one of the first steps in implementing any form of dictatorship.

Quoted from user23.3

Banning political parties can often be one of the first steps in implementing any form of dictatorship.

To have a dictatorship, one needs a dictator, something like Mr Carter.

I read in the  paper that WBC were in the red so how can they talk about pay rises?

Never mind, it is barely 1% of the total budget...bloody old people.  

Quoted from Greenham Common

Never mind, it is barely 1% of the total budget...bloody old people.  

It is interesting that we have to foot the bill because Sovereign find that one of their old folks homes is uneconomical. Why don't they have to find alternative places for the displaced folk - after all they own/run most of the places they will be relocated to. And what is going to happen to the place that is closed? I suspect that it won't be handed back to the Council (assuming it was an ex-council home like most of Sovereign's property).

If Sovereign are acting in a commercial way, should their charitable status be removed?

Quoted from Administrator

Councillors already cost local taxpayers £500,000 a year in expenses – equivalent to a 1% council tax rise.

WBC's budget is running at around £100M, 25% of which is raised via Council Tax. So £500k is 2% of the Council Tax.

And repayment of their currently projected overspend this year (£820k) will require a 3.3% increase in Council Tax - unless they can persuade central government to share the burden (not sure how likely that is).

Quoted from blackdog

It is interesting that we have to foot the bill because Sovereign find that one of their old folks homes is uneconomical. Why don't they have to find alternative places for the displaced folk - after all they own/run most of the places they will be relocated to. And what is going to happen to the place that is closed? I suspect that it won't be handed back to the Council (assuming it was an ex-council home like most of Sovereign's property).  If Sovereign are acting in a commercial way, should their charitable status be removed?

Articulated brilliantly what I was thinking. I thought HAs were obliged to deal with these issues and I'd say homeless old folk would come quite close to the top of the list of most important.

Quoted from blackdog

If Sovereign are acting in a commercial way, should their charitable status be removed?

I agree. Some of these charities-come-companies seem to have the best of both worlds.

Quoted from blackdog

It is interesting that we have to foot the bill because Sovereign find that one of their old folks homes is uneconomical. Why don't they have to find alternative places for the displaced folk - after all they own/run most of the places they will be relocated to. And what is going to happen to the place that is closed? I suspect that it won't be handed back to the Council (assuming it was an ex-council home like most of Sovereign's property).

If Sovereign are acting in a commercial way, should their charitable status be removed?

Sovereign Group is not a charity. Part of the group though, 'Sovereign Housing Association' is a charity. But that is the only part that is.

Trafalgar Court (the scheme that has so vexed WBC and members of this forum), was the only Sovereign scheme that had full time clinical and medical care. The only one that has / had full time live in nursing staff. As such it did not come under the normal 'Sovereign housing' or 'supported housing' banners. Just to repeat the point, it was the only one Sovereign had of it's kind. The residents that have had to be moved have indeed all gone to other schemes. But not Sovereign ones. (see repeated point above)

The nursing / care homes that the residents have gone to have realised that WBC needed to get these people sorted quickly and were therefore pretty much over a barrel. It would, I'm sure come to no surprise to members of this forum to learn that prices at these care homes suddenly shot up. That is one of the reasons WBC have now got an increased bill for their care.


Threep.

Quoted from Threepwood

Sovereign Group is not a charity. Part of the group though, 'Sovereign Housing Association' is a charity. But that is the only part that is.

I won't begin to pretend to understand the implications of this, but it seems strange to me to have a charity 'under' a commercial enterprise!

I suspect the problem here is in the perception of what a charity is and does.

Eton College is a charity, for instance, and Oxfam comes under the umbrella of a company called 'OxfamUK' so it can get very confusing.


Threep.