It will be interesting to find out how much money the council has spent on this new mini-department, and how successful it has been. How much of the work of the new officers and managers could and should have been done by existing well paid staff?

Elmbridge Borough Council is looking for a Recycling Advisor. The salary is modest and it’s only for a four-month fixed contract, however why does the council need to employ someone to knock on doors offering recycling advise? When my council rolled out a new recycling scheme a couple of years ago, all residents were informed of what they could and could not recycle. Since then recycling rates have increased.

In many ways I have sympathy with councils. The more they put into landfill, the more we have to pay in landfill tax. The former leader of my council told me when it comes to recycling his only interest is to reduce the amount paid in landfill tax in order to keep council tax bills down. It’s very difficult to argue with that statement.

I have two issues with Elmbridge. The first is if they had informed residents properly in the first place, they wouldn’t have to employ someone to knock on doors. In this instance it would have saved a salary of around £5K. That doesn’t sound a lot, but as we know, a few thousand here and a few thousand there starts adding up to sizeable sums of money.

The second problem I have is although I accept councils want to reduce the amount of landfill tax that is paid, knocking on people’s doors is not a cost effective method of communication. It also smacks of the nanny state.

Give residents choices by all means, but we don’t pay our council tax to be lectured on our doorsteps.

The report investigated Somerton Town Council’s sale of public land at Etsome Terrace, its purchase of property at Cary Court and subsequent conversion to a community hall in 2009. The external auditors concluded that the council ‘made decisions that were unlawful and may have resulted in unlawful expenditure’ and most damning of all for local taxpayers, ‘failed to adequately budget for, or to monitor, expenditure on the conversion of 8 Cary Court to a community hall.’

‘In my opinion the Council sold Etsome Terrace without taking the proper steps to ensure that the sale price was the best available,’ said the report’s author. ‘It purchased 8 Cary Court and converted it to a community hall without first determining that it would meet the needs of the community. The Council failed to properly budget and monitor the cost of converting the building to a community hall. When the eventual cost was more than twice that originally expected, the Council was unable to demonstrate why the overspend had been necessary.’

These findings will be discussed at a public meeting arranged by Somerton Town Council on 29 February 2012.

‘The funds that may have been spent “unlawfully” could total up to just less than £1,100,000,’ says Somerton resident Niall Connolly. ‘The Town Council, having sold public land to fund the purchase of the industrial unit, failed to pay off the Public Works Loan Board loan, which will be a burden on the local taxpayers for another 17 years.’

‘When their actions are brought to the attention of the authorities, as is the case with Somerton, there are no consequences for those who made the decisions. However, there are significant consequences for local taxpayers who are forced to fund the consequences of those actions, diverting much needed funds from local need to interest and capital repayment.’

For more on Niall’s analysis of his council’s failures, see his blog. At the time, his criticism of the council in 2009 resulted in a mass resignation of 11 councillors.  It was a brave stance. But he was right to be critical, as the auditor’s report now reveals. Niall should be praised for his services to local taxpayers – unlike several of their councillors…

I’m not talking about 5% or even 10%. If you have one car, the cost of a permit will double from £10 to £20. If you have a second car, the cost will increase from £30 to £60. Businesses are also being hit with the cost of a permit rising for a first vehicle from £20 to £40, and charges for a second business vehicle will increase from £60 to £90.  A visitor permit, currently costing £2.50 will rise four-fold to £10. Even charges for carers will double. It is estimated these rises will swell the council’s coffers by £352K. 

The council has stated that ‘parking permits are being doubled as part of efforts to absorb £55 million of funding cuts.’ This in itself raises questions of legality. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 says that parking regulations should be revenue neutral, and any surpluses should be spent on “transport related purposes and other environmental schemes.” As the council is admitting the increases are being introduced to raise extra revenue, where is that revenue going to be spent?

If the council wants to save money, instead of increasing charges it could end the taxpayer funding of unions, which cost Sheffield council taxpayers over £631K in 2010/11. UNISON alone received over £346K, almost enough to prevent the rise in parking permits.

Sheffield council taxpayers are being hit by large rises when they can least afford it, and the council is deliberately targeting those who have no choice but to pay up.

The Leader of the Council said in an interview on Radio York on Saturday morning that only two people had personally complained to him about the proposed 3% rise. Judging by the response we got from the public, the leader should get out more. When I told one lady what the leader had said, she replied that he was out of touch.

In a little over an hour, we gathered around 150 signatures, and could have easily got more. When we went into a nearby hotel for a coffee, three people saw me with the petition in my hand and asked to sign it there and then! Copies of the petition have been left with local supporters who will get more signatures ahead of the full council meeting on 28 February which will decide the budget for the forthcoming year.

Next Saturday, we will be in Redcar campaigning against the proposed rise there. If you can join us, please let me know.

It is undeniably a good thing for smaller district councils to share chief executives. St Edmundsbury and Forest Heath both cover small populations and it makes sense for the cost of senior managers to be spread among a larger number of taxpayers. Similarly, it is welcome that the sharing agreement has not led to a large increase in the Chief Executive’s salary. A similar arrangement between Brentwood Borough and Essex County Council saw Joanna Killian become the highest-paid council chief executive in the country.

The amalgamation of senior management roles, however, does not need to be the sole level of cooperation between councils. Often the Chief Executive is only one of many highly-paid senior bureaucrats within a local authority and further savings can be made if councils can integrate services and management structures.

The St Edmundsbury-Forest Heath arrangement seems to recognise this. This deal is part of a wider sharing agreement that will create initial savings of up to £2 million. James Waters, the Council Leader at Forest Heath, hopes that the shared Chief Executive “will help not only drive shared services forward, but […] put us in the position of working with other partners beyond the boundaries of Suffolk.”

A good guide to follow is the shared services arrangement between Hammersmith and Fulham, Westminster, and Kensington and Chelsea councils. From 2014/15 onwards their Tri-borough plan hopes to save £33 million a year by combining back office and management costs and by cutting duplicate senior management roles. They will save an estimated £320,000 a year alone by having only one Director of Children’s Services.

Critically, these councils are handing back savings to local taxpayers. There is little point in reducing the number of middle and senior managers if the money is redirected into other wasteful schemes. Hammersmith and Fulham Council credits the Tri-Borough savings with allowing a 3.75% cut in council tax this year.

Local authorities must make necessary cuts to their budgets and it is encouraging that some have found innovative ways of doing so. There are always alternatives to library closures or fortnightly bin collections and the burden is on local politicians to make the right decisions. But too many councillors are not being bold. They still splurge growing amounts on middle management and then whinge that they lack the money for frontline services or council tax cuts.

Councils which have made clever savings are too original by far.

Such convoluted and scandalous arrangements are not unusual in the public sector. Often the problem lies with mismanaged redundancy schemes. In October 2011, it was revealed that a series of NHS executives had accepted large severance payments only to be reemployed on short-term contracts, often costing more than £1,000 per day. Also in October 2011, Stoke-on-Trent Council paid out £330,000 in redundancy payments to 25 staff and then rehired them in new jobs. But a variation on Geates’ retirement arrangement is also widespread. It was estimated in June 2010 that 10,000 public sector workers are paid a pension on top of their salary, a practice derided as double-dipping.

The rationale behind these schemes is often to save taxpayers’ money. Geates got £300,000 because his role has been ‘civilianised’ to save £22,000 a year. But the public sector is not always careful that cost savings are well-planned or well-executed. The Government claims that it takes this seriously and Eric Pickles has promised a crackdown on the practice of double-dipping, but the Geates example suggests that not enough has been done.

These shady pension arrangements are unfair and they lack transparency. Geates was immediately reemployed by the Scottish Police College, his position was not advertised, and no other candidates were interviewed. It may be true that he was the best person for the job, but taxpayers will want to know that a proper process was followed and that this deal was not stitched up behind closed doors.

It’s similarly unfair that some highly-paid public officials can receive full pensions at only 55. Public sector workers are already significantly better paid on average than those in the private sector and they get substantial taxpayer contributions to their pensions. Most taxpayers could never dream of retiring as early as 55.

Furthermore, it is morally wrong that public sector workers should seek to maximise their financial gain at the expense of ordinary taxpayers. In the face of necessary spending cuts, Geates and his like are leeching away money that could go towards more frontline police or a helpful tax cut. As Director of Scotland’s leading police training centre, Geates should set a better example to his recruits.

Here is the latest list of Town halls proposing Council Tax rises (those that have already voted through the rise at council are marked with a *).

*Surrey County (Con) 2.99 %
Nottingham City (Lab) 3.4 %
*Chelmsford Borough (Con) 2.46 %
Gravesham BC (Lab) 3.48 %
Cambridgeshire County (Con) 2.95 %
Gedling Borough (Lab) 3.4 %
Peterborough City (Con) 2.95 %
York City (Lab) 2.9 %
Preston City Council (Lab) 3.5 %
Stoke-on-Trent City (Lab) 3.49 %
East Cambridgeshire (Con) 2.95 %
Stockton-On-Tees Borough (Lab) 3.5 %
Darlington BC (Lab) 3.5 %
Chesterfield BC (Lab) 3.5 %
Middlesbrough (Lab) 3.5 %
Leicester City (Lab) 3.5 %
Redcar & Cleveland Borough (Lab) 3.5 %
Brighton & Hove City (Green) 3.5 %
Tunbridge Wells BC (Con) 3.3 %
Richmondshire (Lib/Ind) 3 %
*South Hams (Con) 2.5 %
*West Devon (Con) 2.5 %
Lichfied Distrcit Council (Con) 3.4 %
Luton BC (Lab) 3.44 %
Barrow BC (Lab) 3.49 %
North Dorset (Con) 3.49 %
Dover DC (Con) 3.45 %
South Ribble BC (Con) 2.5 %
Epsom & Ewell BC (NOC) 2.5 %
Babergh District Council (NOC) 3.5 %

Scarborough BC and Taunton Deane BC have both previously proposed to raise Council Tax but have now publicly stated that they intend to freeze it.

First they present a simple guide to what the headers in the overall plan really mean, little accountability and a small board dispensing eye watering amounts of money.  And then a more detailed analysis which sets out how “uncontrollable political and financial power is transferred to a small group of people”.  All in the name of bailouts that aren’t going to fix the fundamental problems in the eurozone.

This is a powerful reminder of how Brussels has little respect for democratic oversight and independent scrutiny and accountability over how money they spend our cash.

Here is the full document setting out the current proposals:

All those councils who are thinking about raising council tax should be following the lead of councils like South Holland in Lincolnshire, who are not increasing the burden on local residents, and are reducing bills instead. Councils planning increases are in the minority, and we need to send them a clear message that if the majority of councils can either freeze or reduce bills, there is no excuse for them not to do the same.

What: Richmondshire Action Day
Where: Market Cross, Richmond, North Yorkshire
When: 11.00 am, Saturday 18 February

Bonuses are supposed to reward exceptional staff who excel in their jobs and who make an outstanding contribution to their organisation. In the Civil Service, where managers have nothing so boring as productivity to worry about, bonuses are calculated using a complicated formula including the staff member’s contribution to hitting diversity quotas. Aside from the sheer cost of these pay-outs, serious questions must be asked about what makes these bureaucrats’ performance so exceptional. It seems that already highly-paid civil servants are being applauded as if the minimum wasn’t mandatory.

Looking at the figures more closely, four departments have actually increased the amount paid out in bonuses. One is the Department of Energy and Climate Change, which has increased its bonus pot by 12 per cent since 2010 to £1.1million. This rise comes despite that department’s relentless drive to waste taxpayers’ money. The TaxPayers’ Alliance has revealed that their green initiatives will greatly increase the amount that households pay in energy bills in the next several years.

The Department for International Development doled out £1.3million to its top employees last year, again despite their careless use of taxpayers’ money. It is well-documented that their aid programmes are wasteful and susceptible to fraud, but they are still rewarded for their “excellent” performance.

Jeremy Beeton, director general of the Government Olympic Executive, received the most in Whitehall, with £187,500 in bonuses alone. This was on top of his salary of £220,000. His bonus is hard to justify when the Government Olympic Executive has failed to halt the huge increases in the Olympics’ budget, which has risen from the original £2.37billion to £9.3billion.

It is inexcusable for such an exorbitant amount of hard-earned taxpayers’ money to be given to so many civil servants just for doing their jobs. If bonuses are to be given, they should be for truly outstanding performance, as they are in the private sector. The public sector needs to stop focusing on hitting misguided diversity quotas and start paying attention to cutting waste and saving taxpayers’ money.