Pay rise for council leaders?

Hamid wrote:

I am hoping that people will examine their hearts and consciences before this vital meeting. There is no way that people with integrity can vote for this. Perhaps the meeting could be attended by those on a pay freeze.

Premiership wages in a low division town. Many council staff only get £12,500 per year as cleaners etc.

The cleaners are worth every penny and provbably do their job a hell of a lot better than the bunch of muppets in charge.

This will be repeated again next year as well I bet.

I do not know about anyone else but I am going down to the meeting Next Wednesday. Spoken to the Councillor tonight about the incredible pay rise. I do not know about you folks but I hope that the public will turn up for the meeting and demonstrate their total disgust to this.

The council meeting starts at 6.15 pm the councillor has told me. So hopes to see me in the public gallery. But we will see, though I hope the public of Rochdale turn up outside the Town Hall to put pressure on the councillors to reject this.

I hope they sign the e-petition started by Clive Jones on the council website. Which I am going to do now.

http://rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/83021/consultants-paid-tens-of-thousands-by-council-to-produce-executive-pay-report

How much worse can it get

Do not know Jeanie, but I have a feeling it has not reached the bottom yet.

I have posted it to Facebook so many more will soon sign I am getting loads of response ,E-Petitions are always slow to take off but I am sure this one will reach full speed very soon  

I will go and have a look Jeanie.

Seen it Jeanie.

teamplayer2 wrote:I do not know about anyone else but I am going down to the meeting Next Wednesday. Spoken to the Councillor tonight about the incredible pay rise. I do not know about you folks but I hope that the public will turn up for the meeting and demonstrate their total disgust to this.

The council meeting starts at 6.15 pm the councillor has told me. So hopes to see me in the public gallery. But we will see, though I hope the public of Rochdale turn up outside the Town Hall to put pressure on the councillors to reject this.

I hope they sign the e-petition started by Clive Jones on the council website. Which I am going to do now.

It may be that Peter Jackson started the e-petition. Anyway thank you for setting up the e-petition.

Looking at the reports and comments last night from others on the news media and other websites. It looks like a majority are against the pay rise. Whatever your politics please support those councillors who are speaking out against it and hope to get it stopped or at least stalled for further debate.

As for those Labour Councillors who are thinking of sitting on the fence by abstaining. This is because they fear the party whip and face being disciplined. I can only say that if you strongly oppose the pay rise you will vote against it. Why are you councillors if you cannot be the voice of the voters and free to vote how you feel? If you put the party first on such a strong issue and go against the wishes of the voters in Rochdale. Then are you really for or against the people of Rochdale and should you stay on as councillors?

Are you councillors for the good people of Rochdale or are you only in for party politics?

Perhaps put it this way of the Labour Councillors. Who come first? The sick, homeless, and those unemployed. Or is a good pay rise for the managers of the town council more important when it comes to spending Council Tax Payers Money?

Why are the Labour supporters and their workers so quiet on the issue?

Couldn't agree more. E-Petition getting towards 700 last time I looked. You need more. Have RO put out the word regarding the petition? Find a way of getting more publicity. Try Panorama - you never know -!!

Well the Council Meeting at the Town Hall on Wednesday 16th October 2013 to debate the business and the proposed £40,000 pay rise for the Chief Executive of Rochdale council. There is supposed to be a group who are to protest and may be others before the meeting starts. I hope as many people turn up as possible to show the Councillors who support this disgusting pay rise there feelings against it. Show the councillors they cannot tell people to cut back and suffer while they cannot practice what they preach. Tell your friends or anyone to contact their local councillors and show we cannot afford this pay rise if we cannot afford money for services. We are the Council Tax Payers and they are employed by us and it is our money they play with and does not belong to them. We vote for councillors to look after our money to pay for services not to give others large pay rises.

Excuse the length of this post but this is the lengthy email I send two days ago to the councillors for Heywood North, Heywood West, Hopwood Hall and Norden wards, ie the four wards which represent the people of the parish of Our Lady and St. Joseph's, Heywood. I wrote in a personal capacity:

Mr Mayor, Madam Deputy Mayor, councillors,

I am emailing you as the councillors for the four wards that cover the parish of Our Lady and St. Joseph's in Heywood, which extends also to include that part of Birtle from Ashworth Rd to the Church Inn and a little bit above it! I know each one of you apart from Cllr Winkler so may I welcome him and express the hope that we might meet before too long. I did, of course, have the privilege of knowing his predeccessor, Ann, for whom I still retain the fondest regard, even if, after her memorable and unique funeral, I did almost drive my car through a fence on Ashworth Rd that she had worked hard to have erected!

Can I express my deepest concern at the proposed pay rises for senior executives and at the spending of nearly £30 000 to get outside consultants in to write a report that concludes, surprise suprise, that in a country where the poor are getting poorer, the rich should get richer, even with taxpayers' money!

I should add that I have been proud of the way that the Labour administration in Rochdale has, with a few exceptions, managed the very savage cuts imposed by central government. I deplore the cutting of funding which valuable groups like Petrus have had to put up with. However, on the whole, this council leadership has tried to protect the vulnerable. Moreover, I value the support that this Council's leadership has given to us with projects such as the FoodBank, Cellar Project and Heywood Pastoral Hub (which is trying to bring together all groups who serve the poor in Heywood to ensure that gaps are filled). Finally, I do agree that we have a particularly strong team at the top levels of the Council Executive Team and that they are very possibly the ones that can turn this Borough, and particularly the town of Rochdale, around.

HOWEVER, it cannot be right to give the Chief Executive an almost 30% pay rise!!!! Indeed, two council officers alone, (or public servants as I prefer to call them) will be paid an extra c£70 000 per year!!

Pope Benedict in 2007 said: "The disparity between rich and poor has become more evident and more disturbing, even within the most economically advanced nations.

"This worrying situation appeals to the conscience of mankind because the conditions being suffered by such a large number of people are such as to offend the dignity of human beings and, as a consequence, to compromise the authentic and harmonious progress of the world community.

"I encourage, then, an increase in efforts to eliminate the causes of poverty and the tragic consequences deriving from it."


Pope Francis said: (and excuse the long quote)

It is a form of suffering, the shortage of work — that leads you — excuse me if I am coming over a little strong but I am telling the truth — to feel that you are deprived of dignity! Where there is no work there is no dignity! And this is not only a problem in Sardinia — but it is serious here! — it is not only a problem in Italy or in certain European countries, it is the result of a global decision, of an economic system which leads to this tragedy; an economic system centred on an idol called “money”.

God did not want an idol to be at the centre of the world but man, men and women who would keep the world going with their work. Yet now, in this system devoid of ethics, at the centre there is an idol and the world has become an idolater of this “god-money”.

Money is in command! Money lays down the law! It orders all these things that are useful to it, this idol. And what happens? To defend this idol all crowd to the centre and those on the margins are done down, the elderly fall away, because there is no room for them in this world! Some call this habit “hidden euthanasia”, not caring for them, not taking them into account.... “No, let’s not bother about them...”. And the young who do not find a job collapse, and their dignity with them. Do you realize that in a world where youth — two generations of young people — have no work that this world has no future Why? Because they have no dignity! Is is hard to have dignity without work. This is your difficulty here. This is the prayer you were crying out from this place: “work”, “work”, “work”. It is a necessary prayer. Work means dignity, work means taking food home, work means loving! To defend this idolatrous economic system the “culture of waste” has become established; grandparents are thrown away and young people are thrown away. And we must say “no” to this “culture of waste”. We must say “we want a just system! A system that enables everyone to get on”. We must say: “we don’t want this globalized economic system which does us so much harm!”. Men and women must be at the centre as God desires, and not money!"



I urge you to vote against this proposal, even if it means voting against the whip; even if you are the whip and have to discipline yourself; even if you are members of the Cabinet or the Leader itself. Think what that £70 000 could mean to Petrus or to other key agencies in these difficult times.



I urge you to persuade the Leadership of the Council to sack these ridiculous consultants and withdraw the proposal from the agenda for the Council meeting. I urge the three party leaders to come together and discuss a way forward. I urge you to put these proposals on hold and discuss a way forward that will secure the commitment of these senior people (if indeed their commitment is linked to more and more money which I very much doubt) to the future of our Borough. Maybe an all-party group might meet? Maybe, and this might indeed be democracy, the proposal might be discussed at a public meeting in each Township?



I don't do politics (no, really I don't) but my role is to teach and proclaim the Gospel (sorry if that sounds pretentious). There is a serious and moral issue here when so many people in our Borough are facing economic hardship; when hard-working families are finding it tough; when the anawim, the underclass, the Lazarus at our gate, are finding even their support workers being closed; when I know families in Heywood whose children will wake up with no presents on Christmas Day and no Christmas Dinner; when the services that charities like Petrus do are being cut by this Council's proposal to spend money on increasing pay rather than on decreasing poverty; when the Salvation Army's service to the homeless was driven out of the Borough and their hostel turned into a car park. Please use your (sorry, OUR) money wisely. Defer this decision. If it goes to a vote, reject it.



Pope Paul VI said that going into politics was the noblest and highest form of charity and service; please please demonstrate it!



with every good wish and with the assurance of my prayers and, if you are martyred by your political party for speaking up for the Gospel, thank you



Paul Daly

Dalelad wrote:

Hinch wrote:

Dalelad wrote:No he's not blameless, Atlas. He's a greedy so and so. He can easily say no.

Call me a greedy SOB DaleLad but if someone offered me another £42K a year, I wouldn't say 'no'.

I'd like to think I'd at least think about it, as Chief Exec of an organisation which was laying folk off, and giving others a 1% pay rise.

Dalelad: They have thought about it !  Formal consultation has been undertaken during the period 27th September to 7th October 2013 with the senior officers directly affected by these pay proposals; individual meetings were held with the six staff directly affected.

The Council’s Head of HR was also present at the consultation meetings and opportunity for those senior council officers to comment and put forward alternative options was provided.  Public reports show There are no outstanding issues following the outcome of those consultations.    

Atlas wrote:Couldn't agree more. E-Petition getting towards 700 last time I looked. You need more. Have RO put out the word regarding the petition? Find a way of getting more publicity. Try Panorama - you never know -!!

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/83011/epetition-calls-for-council-executive-pay-restraint

Chill37 wrote:This will be repeated again next year as well I bet.

     Yes, well, reports show it is only Phase 1 of a management pay review !  


As the subject was moved from a separate am Employment Committee Meeting, into the pm Council meeting with it's usual 'packed' Agenda, I wonder just how much time it will be allocated; still, at least the press/media aren't excluded.  What is all this about us being a " Premiership borough " ? ?  Who said this, when and where; was it printed in a hard-copy Rag ?  most confusing ..


Welcome back heywoodpp)

Am I wrong but it is our money they are proposing to use to pay for this pay rise? The money that does not exist in the council to pay for essential services?

As a Council Tax Payer along with other voters, we do vote for councillors to look after our money. If they fail and cannot do this, then they should consider their position as a councillor in looking after the public money. I will be looking at this when it comes for me to vote for any councillor at the next council elections. As for Labour, if they are going to act like this then they had better stay out of power at both national and local politics. Do not come back until they come out with common sense politics and how to look after the money that is paid for by tax payers and council tax payers. Money does not grow on a tree. I thought they learned that from last time ???????

It seems that it's not only about the pay rises, but has various ' extra 'sidelines: -


One example: THE HAY GROUP ‘RETENTION INCENTIVE’ PROPOSAL


'Specifically we would suggest that the Borough Council considers a three-year incentive scheme for the Chief Executive and Directors, aligned to the new Blueprint for the Council.   A three year scheme has advantages over an annual scheme in that: (i) it recognises that some of the changes needed are long-term and will take several years to implement; and (ii) the payment would promote top team retention.


Under the scheme, awards would accrue each year (i.e. a third of the total award subject to performance) but only paid to the incumbent at the end of the three year period.    If the incumbent leaves prior to the completion of the three year plan, they would forfeit the whole reward.    Awards would be dependent on performance and paid only if targets are met.  

The size of reward would need to be significant enough to be a motivating factor for staff, whilst at the same time being affordable and commensurate with wider public sector pay restraint.           We suggest considering awarding 10% of salary each year (30% over three years), which would cost an additional £180,000 over three years based on current salaries and excluding inflation

:     

I too have signed the petition and voiced my views over on RO on this obscene pay rise.

Mojo Hill wrote:

It seems that it's not only about the pay rises, but has various ' extra 'sidelines: -


One example: THE HAY GROUP ‘RETENTION INCENTIVE’ PROPOSAL


'Specifically we would suggest that the Borough Council considers a three-year incentive scheme for the Chief Executive and Directors, aligned to the new Blueprint for the Council.   A three year scheme has advantages over an annual scheme in that: (i) it recognises that some of the changes needed are long-term and will take several years to implement; and (ii) the payment would promote top team retention.


Under the scheme, awards would accrue each year (i.e. a third of the total award subject to performance) but only paid to the incumbent at the end of the three year period.    If the incumbent leaves prior to the completion of the three year plan, they would forfeit the whole reward.    Awards would be dependent on performance and paid only if targets are met.  

The size of reward would need to be significant enough to be a motivating factor for staff, whilst at the same time being affordable and commensurate with wider public sector pay restraint.           We suggest considering awarding 10% of salary each year (30% over three years), which would cost an additional £180,000 over three years based on current salaries and excluding inflation

:     

I guess this would depend on what is going to be measured, and what the target is. If these people manage to turn around the town in some considerable way, then they may have earned it. I would also like to include a clause where they agree to pay money back if certain criteria are not reached as well. That would focus their minds, I would hope.

The three year performance bonus recommendation has already been shelved.

This need to incentivise, support  and improve the morale of senior council executives could be more usefully met by regular civic parades, with council executives riding in open topped cars, smiling and waving to appreciative crowds whenever there is good news for the town to  celebrate. This would involve and allow the citizens to voice their approval.

I do not know if anyone agrees with this statement.

If any councillor or any managers of the council has to hire consultant at the expense of the Council Tax Payer which has cost thousands of pounds. Money that can be used to improve services and help the most people who need the money.  Then the councillors or managers should not be in a position to run a council if they are prepared to waste money on a decision which they should be able to make without having to hire outside consultants.

Outrageous!  

£27,000 for the consultants? Where did THAT money come from and where the heck is the other £100,000+ going to come from? Seems the Borough can find money when it wants to!

Spartacus wrote:Outrageous!  

£27,000 for the consultants? Where did THAT money come from and where the heck is the other £100,000+ going to come from? Seems the Borough can find money when it wants to!

Or for new shopping centres.