| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Cllr Ruth Cadbury at today's read-in | |
| Posted by: | Phil Andrews | |
| Date/Time: | 09/02/11 11:23:00 |
| Credit to Ed for giving such a thorough response to the various questions put. You must be a new councillor Ed! :o) A couple of additional points: 1. If the SRA for individual (cross-party) members of the Licensing Committee was removed at the time that an SRA for the (Labour) Chair was introduced then the economic case is made, although I would agree with Hazel that there is no case for any remuneration for serving on this particular body. Having served on this Committee myself I can see no case at all for the Chair being so generously rewarded for what is a very easy and occasional job. The Committee itself meets very rarely and most of the work involved is by the Panels, which are drawn from the Committee. In my experience some Committee members served on significantly more Panels than others and those who were regulars almost certainly did more work and committed more of their time than the Chair. 2. I said at the time and will repeat that it is to the credit of the new administration that it reduced councillor allowances (if I recall correctly it was actually 20% in the case of SRAs). However, as Labour opposed the original increase the logical thing for it to have done would have been to reset allowances to their pre-increase levels. Why did it not do this? I would add finally that there is no evidence of any work to reconsider either the level or the number of chief and senior officer salaries. With £60m needing to be found it is extraoridnary that the new administration would appear content to continue to carry this particular cross. A cynic might feel that this is because the proposals originate wholly or at least in large part from that particular source and recall an old saying about turkeys and Christmas. If things are so serious that we have to even contemplate closing libraries and cutting community halls adrift then there should be no sacred cows. |