Quote:
Originally Posted by Gayle
Well I would defend any of the councillors for taking the allowances and expenses. If I'd have been elected then too right I would have done it too.
I spend a lot of time in the council offices and some of the councillors are in there most of the time. As for making them take minimum pay - they'd be claiming more if they did that. Being on the council is a 24hr thing, 7 days a week - people ring them up at all hours to complain or comment on things and expect them to be at their beck and call. They don't earn a salary for being on the council and the amount they can claim comes no where near the salary that they'd be missing out on if they worked elsewhere.
Whilst the expenses hike might have seemed like a big one, let's put it into perspective - Britcliffe only spent about 5 nights away last year (or something like that) very few others actually spent any nights away. The additional amount claimed is probably peanuts.
|
I think your reading my script Gayle, but you put things for more eloquently than I ever could. I know that Brian Walmsley worked out that if he was paid the minimum hourly rate he would be a hell of a sight better off. Earlier this year I was having a drink in Ossy Social and Brian came in about 9-40pm, he told me that he had been out of the house since 8-30am thats over 13 hours and believe me that ain't a one off. Gayle is quite right in saying that councillors are on call 24/7 and by that I mean all councillors of all parties, its a thankless job, because working on behalf of the general public is a nightmare. All anybody has to do is ask one question, look in the mirror and ask would I work for me, iF the answers no forget being a councillor you won't make it