Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
20 November 2008
11:179529#1
The good news after heavy increases in Car Parking is that they are to be frozen for two years,the Labour opposition has been asking for a review and it revealed that the Car Parks numbers were holding up,but that the cars were parking on average for a lot less time! So where people were coming into Town and looking around the cars seem to stop visit the shop or shops that they need to go to and disappear,result trade will be down especially in such places as cafes.
Also the Council has decided that Councillors will not get an increase in thier allowances even if an independant review says it should,if that review says the allowances should be cut then they will be,although it says Councillors have agreed that,it appears that it is infact a Cabinet decision,in my latest papers in says see appendix B,but that is missing.
So what do you think a Councillor should get paid,if you agree they should get paid,for last years results,look under Dover District Council,under Democracy,then Councillors and then last years Councillor allowances.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
20 November 2008
11:239531#2
JHG
You pose a very difficult question over whether Councillors should get paid? Well the answer to that question is NO.
However should Councillors be able to claim back reasonable expenses then answer to that question would be YES but with very strict guidelines.
Does Mr Watkins have any form of employment other than the council?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Terry Nunn
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,321
20 November 2008
11:519532#3
Agree with you there Marek, councillors should not be paid but should receive expenses. If they were to be paid it would have to be "piece work" i.e. they would get paid for the work they did. This would be impossible to apply. The quality of the work would have to be judged as well as the hours so it's not on.
Paul Watkins runs a "rest home", from what I heard quite a good one.
I thought he used to have one in Barton Road but perhaps that was Peter Bean!
Terry
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Unregistered User
20 November 2008
14:549550#4
Mr Watkins has retired from his "rest home"[5 years]. But thank you for the kind words Terry. You are correct about Peter Bean . My former establishment was in Deal.
The article should say it is Cabinet members taking the freeze. Other Councillors can make their own
decision when debated by DDC.
Watty
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
20 November 2008
15:189552#5
To be fair Cabinet Holders put in a lot of hours each week,and even the 'ordinary'Councillors have to put in a lot of hours,for instance next week I have in my Diary5 meetings,in fact it is such a busy week next week I have asked for it off at work,some weeks I will put in 15-20hrs like the week before last when I was on nights,these are meetings and case work,another week it can be 30-40hrs as well as doing home work,the other way to look at it is if you do not get an allowance some people would not get involved.I am luckier than some because I have a Full time round the clock job,but it means that I do not spend much time at home.
I am also a shadow portfolio holder and that brings in extra work,and do I do it for the money,no sure it helps,but I spent 4 years as a Town Cllr without getting a penny,but would I do it if I wasn't paid,yes,but it worked out at between £2-£3 an hour,and sometimes gets very heavy,and you can get slaughtered if you put a foot out of place.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
20 November 2008
15:239554#6
Local government has changed a lot over the years and at a District and County level the amount of commitment needed in time is such that an income payment is certainly justified.
If all you want are retired people and those who are wealthy with independent incomes to serve on Councils then by all means stop paying them.
It is very difficult to get good people to stand for election, particularly those who have to earn a living, dont make it harder, if you do it would only make things a lot worse.
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
20 November 2008
15:309555#7
Not again I am agreeing with Barryw,must get a seat and sit down,but he is right the only Cllrs you would see are retired people and those with independant incomes,it sometimes is difficult for me because I work shifts and attend a Council meeting before disappearing to go and do a night shift,Paul will tell you of me leaving early as I only get time off work if,
1.it is unpaid.
2.they can cover me,which means never.
But the advantage I have not working a 9 to 5 job is that I can make meetings in the day.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Unregistered User
20 November 2008
16:159556#8
Agree with JHG.
Guest 670- Registered: 23 Apr 2008
- Posts: 573
20 November 2008
16:229557#9
Of course we should pay them and like you JHG I am in agreement with Barry W on this one. If we have no confidence in a particular Councillor we have the right to get rid of them through the power of the ballot box.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
21 November 2008
13:159620#10
I am agreeing with Barry, Paul and JHG on this one, I really must go and sit down in a darkened room.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
21 November 2008
20:569657#11
This happened to me once.........I found a large Jack Daniels helped.
Unregistered User
21 November 2008
20:599659#12
Mine's a bottle of burgundy [unoaked]. Glug-burp
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
27 November 2008
14:549901#13
Well at last nights Council meeting the Labour Group voted not to have an increase it thier allowances and special responsibility allowances for the life of this Council,but we lost on the vote,to accept the the report and look at the allowances at a later date.Perhaps one of my fellow Councillors would like to explain,over to Paul,Sue or Roger.
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
27 November 2008
18:119911#14
John
The Conservative group also voted not to take a rise too - you were there, you know that.
There was a threat that the Cabinet members would not only, not take an increase, but a pay cut, but after a lot of discussion it was decided that they would not take any increase.
A review will take place 2010/11 to see whether Councillors will take a rise then or not.
What people forget is that Councillors (Cabinet members as well as back-benchers) have bills to pay too and some do not have the benefit of a job to help pay their bills.
I believe that local disctrict council elections will take place in 2011 and that this review will take place in 2010, so what's the fuss all about John ? "for the life of this Council" indeed.
An unnecessary posting I feel.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
9 December 2008
00:5810612#15
Roger
not realy john makes a valid point
Iv always said we have a dilema if you pay cllrs you could end up with the wrong people just cos you pay em dont mean they will be the best.
but by not giving an allowance of some kind restricts many working people so its a hard one.
lots more debate me finks.
