Former Council Chief Executive's 'bumper pay-off' finally revealed

It has taken over a year, but Rochdale Council has finally released details of former Chief Executive Roger Ellis' pay off. Mr Ellis, who took early retirement in March 2012, received £76,798.20.

Mr Ellis' £76,798.20 came on top of a total of £175,000 in salary, expenses and pension contributions.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/127/council-watch/80286/former-council-chief-executives-bumper-payoff-finally-revealed

It would take a local worker on minimum wage over 20 YEARS to earn what Roger Ellis received from Rochdale Council in his last year.

Can someone please explain to me just why WE have to pay people in Mr Ellis' position so much money because for the life of me I cannot see how it can be justified.

Middle class pensioners left to bear the brunt of council cutbacks as chief executives continue to get huge salaries

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2323576/Middle-class-pensioners-left-bear-brunt-council-cutbacks-chief-executives-continue-huge-salaries.html

J wrote:

Can someone please explain to me just why WE have to pay people in Mr Ellis' position so much money

It's a puzzler isn't it. Perhaps people like that belong to some sort of secret finance club and talk to each other with special code words?

What were some of the other payoffs, Andy Zuntz (sp) for instance?

No wonder the coffers are empty!

Was Ellis paid early retirement or redundancy?

And didn't he get a pay-off from Blackburn (or some place near there)?

This sort of thing seems to be the latest money cow!

J wrote:It has taken over a year, but Rochdale Council has finally released details of former Chief Executive Roger Ellis' pay off. Mr Ellis, who took early retirement in March 2012, received £76,798.20.

Mr Ellis' £76,798.20 came on top of a total of £175,000 in salary, expenses and pension contributions.

Can someone please explain to me just why WE have to pay people in Mr Ellis' position so much money because for the life of me I cannot see how it can be justified.

I can not see how the additional payment of £76,798.20 is even legal ! The article reports this was a Redundancy lump sum, which would also have its built-in tax-free tonic, but the job of Chief Exec was NOT redundant.


The Council advertised, interviewed and appointed a replacement Chief Executive, after even 'covering' a short gap period, before the current appointment, with an "Acting" Chief Executive. -------- Council-Cabinet approval would surely be required for these payments and actions ?


There are suggestions in the relevant Pension Scheme that, under redundancy, the 'superfluous' post holder can be credited with pension contribution years equivalent to those previously expected prior to a usual retirement age (65 ?) and, if over 55 years old at the time of redundancy, the laid-off person draws the monthly pension sum that had been forecast/projected for income at retirement age.


Other options and permutations that are available in the scheme and accounting/tax opportunities beggar belief.


RO article quote: ‘retirement not redundancy being insisted on by the Council when Mr Ellis left’


As far as I can remember, it was also promoted at the time as voluntary early retirement. Perhaps this also applied to a couple of other very senior, highly-paid RMB posts. ------- I think WE are paying these huge sums because they are authorised and sanctioned by RMB senior officers' Elected associates on Rochdale Council.


F I A S C O

As usual you are being ripped-off and these immoral scum are simply just laughing their socks off at the impotence of anyone in authority to do anything about it. Keep paying your council taxes why don't you.

And, those families might have a sense that they are being robbed by these sort of payouts, which have the flavour of 'banker's bonuses' about them.

How did this apparent 'robbery' of public money come to be so widespread, accepted and unchallenged?

23 Feb 2011 Councillors sitting on Rochdale Council's employment committee in the morning ratified Mr Ellis application for voluntary early retirement, some 13 months prior to his departure.


Philanthropy appeared to be heavily involved: It was reported in the media that Mr Ellis's decision to seek early retirement was entirely his own – thereby contributing to senior management roles’ reduction within RMBC. ----- It was further reported that Mr Lambert applauded the Chief Executive for his offer.


Rochdale Council Leader, Cllr Colin Lambert, explained in the news report that the situation would enable the Council to develop a sharing agreement of the post of CEO with another GM Authority, as well as sharing ‘other’ executive and senior management posts.


24 Feb 2011 ----------- Just one day later, sharing and “exploration” were officially muffled


Reports of sharing Oldham’s CEO "not true’ - Rochdale Online
http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news/53257/reports-of-sharing-oldhams-ceo-not-true


The relevant Pension Scheme is full of Discretions that employers can quietly bring into play. A known 13-month, pre early-retirement period gives great opportunity for permissible tax and rescheduling of compound income(s. -----------

F I A S C O S

Different Regs to NHS Trusts. Repeat Irony prescription urgently needed for the Hinch.

No adjustments to irony tag needed. I made it plain that it was the NHS scheme that I was using as an example. Although BROADLY comparable based on a 50% of final salary deal dependent on length of service plus a tax free lump sum calculable on the same criteria, there is no room for local 'flexibility' in the NHS scheme as it is centrally administered.

Given this 'flexibility', I was somewhat surprised at the lump sum which seems small unless a reduced lump sum was agreed in order to boost the annual sum. This would seem unlikely as the lump sum is free of tax but the annual pension isn't.

The mystery deepens.

The mystery deepens.


And so does the debt. And so does the deprivation and misery caused by other people who are constantly robbing the pot for all they can get - whether legally or otherwise which isn't the point - leaving the rest to struggle on with mere pittances by comparison. These sorts of 'arrangements' are nothing short of theft of public monies by any rational or moral criteria. I don't wish any reciepient or provider of the same any rest or peace.