To take or not?

At the next Cornwall Council meeting (27th July) there is an item on the Agenda that I was not expecting, namely a proposed increase of 2.5% to Members allowances as recommended by the LGA. Now there are 3 options on the table as laid down in the report that’s being presented to full Council ( Click Here for the link to the report).

The 3 Recommendation are:

That the LGA day rate increase be noted and that Members decide whether to:
(i) apply the LGA day rate increase of 2.3% to the Cornwall Council Members’ Allowances Scheme;

(ii) decline to apply the LGA day rate increase of 2.3% to the Cornwall Council Members’ Allowances Scheme;

(iii) apply the LGA day rate increase of 2.3% to the Cornwall Council Members’ Allowances Scheme and leave it to individual Members to foregoall or part of their allowance.

Now what would you do if you were offered this? Would you refuse it? That is the question I ask. After all I work for you and try as best as I can answer and deal with the issues you raise with me. Should I take it or not? Let me know how you feel on this issue.

Update: If option 1 is approved it will cost the tax payer an extra £31,762 to 31st March 2011 (back dated to June) That would be £42,000 per year divided by 123, that equals £344 extra per member per year, or £28 per month before Tax. The 9 month cost (up to 31st March) per Member would be around the £23 mark.


  • Mark @ Falmouth

    Actually Councillors are best placed to decide this, they know how much work is required in representing their community, they can therefore assess whether they are worth that.

    If they misjudge it,then they will be accountable at the ballot box. Councillors are elected to exercise their judgement in these matters.

  • Anonymous

    With talk of cuts coming across Cornwall, and a pay freeze for workers it seems a bit cheeky for the Councillors to be looking at giving themselves a pay rise. I say vote against it!

  • Anonymous

    I think the problem is value for money.. A hard working member like yourself i'd have no problem in claiming an additional 2.3% It probably doesn't even cover the increase in costs you'll face in a 12 month period. The problem is that not every member gives the same level of service and that to some individuals an additional 2.3% is a disgrace. Voting wise Andrew i'd suggest you look round the chamber and ask yourself are the majority of members value for money.. if so vote (i) if not (ii) i dont consider that (iii) is an option because we all know those claiming it will be those that least diserve it

  • Anonymous

    I think its ridicolous that in Cornwall's democratric system the councillors elected by the people earn so little and the executives who are answerable to no one get paid so much. I do think councillors should vote for the pay increase and then move onto why they the organ grinders get paid so badly whilst the monkeys get paid so well.

  • Stephen Richardson

    What is the 'day rate'?

    Perhaps a good solution might be to have a much reduced basic allowance but with 'performance related' add-ons. That way the more hard working councilloors would benefit at the expense of the less diligent with possibly no extra cost. If there was an increased cost then it would be because more councillors were doing more work.

  • Clive

    As one of the comments above – politicians, both local and national, are held in low esteem at the moment. Voting for an increase when people around them are in poverty and losing their jobs? – would not sit well with my conscience

  • Anonymous

    Of course it should be rejected,council tax payers strangely enough dont want to see their hard earned money being swallowed up by members.
    Cllrs get "so little" as someone says because the only qualification they have is the fact they got elected,they arent professionals,if they were chances are they wouldnt have the time to be cllrs, how many high acheivers are cllrs,very few indeed,you get what you pay for.
    Not sure how performance related pay would work,it isnt just a question of going to a lot of meetings as some people tend to think,indeed attendance figures are a pretty misleading way of working out who is good and who isnt.
    Being a cllr is not meant to be a full time job,these are not wages,they are merely to make sure cllrs arent out of pocket,no one forces people to stand for election,if cllrs dont like the conditions,resign,there will be plenty of people willing to stand.

  • Anonymous

    Why is this matter up for discussion again,you turned down(not sure how you personally voted) an allowance increase before the election,the economic climate has not changed.
    Lets be clear the LGA is nothing more than a lobbying group for local councils,its certainly not an indy organisation and Im amazed just because its said something thats become an agenda item,its not a stat body,if you want an increase be open about it,dont try and sneak it in by saying "oh its the lga"…

  • Cllr Andrew Wallis

    Well you will all be please to hear that this recommendation was in fact turned down by all Councillors present.

Please feel free to leave a comment to the post, as I like to hear your views! However, comments that do not meet the rules of the site (found in Blog Disclaimer) will not be published. Furthermore, all comment need to be approved by admin before publication.