howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#1
courtesy of kent online
Redundancy payments to senior County Hall staff in a major shake-up of how the county council is run cost the taxpayer the taxpayer £350,000.
The costs were confirmed by the council as it published the pay and perks of its top officers this week in line with new transparency rules on executive pay.
The official accounts reveal that Peter Gilroy, the former chief executive of Kent County Council received a pay package worth £439,000 in his final year in the job.
Mr Gilroy, who left the role last May, received the six-figure sum because of his much-publicised £200,000 payout he was given on the day he left.
KCC's recruitment costs revealedSo me of the costs of taking on a string of interim directors to cover key jobs after nine directors took redundancy are highlighted in the accounts.
The cost of appointing Malcolm Newsam, acting director of children's services, for three months is shown as £78,750 including fees paid to the agency that recruited him.
However, the actual costs of several others are not detailed or are incorporated into the pay of senior staff who "acted up" as interim directors.
A recent FOI request revealed that KCC had paid £205,000 for interim directors over a three month period.
Cllr Simmonds said: "When you analyse them and take into account the fact that we do not have to pay pension contributions, holiday or sickness payments, employers national insurance, the costs are almost identical indeed, in a number of cases cheaper than employing a permanent member of staff."
Meanwhile, two senior directors who left their jobs in April following a major re-organisation received £215,129 in severance payments.
Oliver Mills, the authority's former director of adult social care, received £118,472 compensation, meaning he was paid £317,649 in 2010-2011.
Former children's services director Rosalind Turner received £96,657, bringing her yearly earnings to £318,237.
KCC managing director Katherine Kerswell, who succeeded Mr Gilroy, received nearly £200,000, of which £160,883 was salary.
It is the second year all councils have been required to set out much greater detail on executive pay for those earning more than £150,000.
Mr Gilroy's annual salary was £214,233 but because the accounts cover the final few weeks he was in his post, he is shown as earning £25,362.
However, his overall remuneration was nearly £440,000 - reflecting the £200,000 lump sum he was paid in return for extending his contract for a further year.
The sum actually cost the taxpayer £407,851 taking into account National Insurance and income tax contributions.
The payout was criticised by auditors although the lump sum was not considered either unlawful or unreasonable.
The published accounts also record that the overall number of staff whose overall earnings were above £150,000 rose last year to 15 compared with eight the previous year.
KCC said the increase was because of compensation payments paid to staff who lost their jobs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#2
It would be nice to see less arrogance and more humility from these public servants who are paid a multiple of the incomes of those whom they serve.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#3
Well if you can't beat them, join them!
If everything goes well, I'll be happy with my income, did some shopping today and got a supply of tools I'll be needing.
I don't really mind if chief executives get a higher income, I suppose they also have a lot of responsibility too.
#4
Spot on Peter - the arrogance of "public servants" beggars belief, especially given the catalogue of bad decisions and failure of service they often leave behind like slug tracks.
#5
Did I say that out loud...........?
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#6
And now they are going on strike.......
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
i belive it is those that are on the lower pay grades that are planning to strike, the fat cats have no need to.
Guest 677- Registered: 8 Jul 2008
- Posts: 150
#8
Thank you Howard, please do not lump all public servants together most of us are very hard working and struggling to live on our pay which is in some cases worse than those who do the same job in the private sector. Trust me we worker bees are just as digusted with the fat cats as everyone else is but those on much lower paid must be protected.
It's not the man in my life, its the life in my man!!
#9
I disagree. Not all those on low pay should be protected - it is that notion that has led, in part, to where we are now. Clearly people doing a good job - and there are many - should not be penalised. But there are demonstrably many many people unfit for purpose in Public Sector posts and they should be managed out, not hidden. Historically people who were "difficult to manage" were booted sideways and upwards rather than managed effectively. Decent worker bees are fab. But don't let the others hide behind you.
Guest 677- Registered: 8 Jul 2008
- Posts: 150
#10
Of course poor performers should be managed out and there are policies in place to do so, which are followed by good managers but that is a seperate issue to pay and conditions. I'm not really arguing that in the past some "difficult to manage" people have been booted sideways and upwards but I can also assure you that staffing matters are being clamped down on (at least in my department) and that those occurances are very rare these days, if they happen at all. But as mentioned before this is a seperate issue from pay and conditions and just as it is unfair to penalise those lower paid workers because of the bad press given to the fat cats it is also unfair to penalise those good lower paid workers for the poor ones.
It's not the man in my life, its the life in my man!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#11
the issue has been turned into a public versus private sector by dave.
always a good and trusted tactic.
most people think that civil servants retire to the carribean courtesy of their pension.
the truth is that the average public sector pension is around 7 grand a year.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
#12
Even those on the lower pay grades are better off than their counterparts in the private sector who pay for their wages and fringe benefits. Where the public sector unions think the money will come from to meet their demands, I don't know. Unless they want us to end up like Greece of course.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
PETER;
Spoken like a true tory mate.
Stephanie is correct there are good and bad in both public and the private sector,
but at both top ends we have chief exrecs earning(sorry wong choice of word) getting wages many dont deserve.
As has been said in many posts in the past,any cutbacks usually will be at the bottom end.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#14
After the May 2010 General Election, Gov. announced that cuts in the public sector would eventually lead to 700,000 less jobs, over a period of years, and the strategy includes recruiting less school/university leavers into the public sector.
My personal experience of public sector workers in Britain is that they are top-class, and I have never come across one, not one, who was not.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#15
So I believe they should all be protected.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
#16
I am fed up with the whinging that we keep hearing from these union leaders in their expensive suits. Strikes get them nowhere they just alienate the general public even when they have a legitimate claim.
We have all had to tighten belts in some way or another, why should civil servants be any different.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#17
Jan;
for a lot of the pulic services the pay is low and these conditions at least make up a little for it.
Strikes nobody wants, but there has to come a point wherre you are able to say enough is enough.
and also have that facility to do so.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
#18
Nobody wants strikes? Have you asked the union leaders about that?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#19
As i stated BERN the everyday person doesn't want stikes, and even the trade unions leaders don't.
But as the teaching union leader stated(who have not gone on strike for 127 years, that tells you summat) they are there to p;rotect there members
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#20
good point keith, when a group of people that normally do not rock the boat take industrial action then we have to listen.
