Grahame Maxwell, the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, will be leaving his post next year after the police authority decided it was not going to renew his fixed-term contract. He has been the chief for five years. The reason he is leaving is because earlier this year he was found guilty of gross misconduct.
Despite the police service having to reduce its budget, Mr Maxwell will leave his post with a lump sum of £200K. This is because he is not entitled to receive a full pension until he has completed 30 years service. He is just eighteen months short of that milestone, and unless he manages to get another job between now and May (when he is due to leave) he must be compensated because his lump sum after twenty eight and a half years will be less than half of what it would have been after 30 years. He is therefore entitled to compensation of 85% of the difference. This is despite very good reasons for the police authority terminating his contract.
Taxpayers in North Yorkshire are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets because of a national ruling that makes it almost impossible to remove him without us picking up the tab.
This case has far reaching consequences. As mentioned in the report in the Yorkshire Post today, what if the new Police and Crime Commissioner wants to remove a chief constable for similar reasons? What if a chief constable has lost public confidence because crime rates are rising and the measures they have put in place are not working? Under these nationally agreed regulations, chief constables are sitting in a very comfortable position. They know if they are not doing their job properly they will be compensated handsomely if they are removed from their posts.
This is something the government needs to investigate. High salaries are paid so the public have the best people in charge of law and order in their communities. They do not pay high salaries for those at the top to leave on massive payouts after they have been found wanting, or in the case of Mr Maxwell, been found guilty of misconduct.Grahame Maxwell, the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, will be leaving his post next year after the police authority decided it was not going to renew his fixed-term contract. He has been the chief for five years. The reason he is leaving is because earlier this year he was found guilty of gross misconduct.
Despite the police service having to reduce its budget, Mr Maxwell will leave his post with a lump sum of £200K. This is because he is not entitled to receive a full pension until he has completed 30 years service. He is just eighteen months short of that milestone, and unless he manages to get another job between now and May (when he is due to leave) he must be compensated because his lump sum after twenty eight and a half years will be less than half of what it would have been after 30 years. He is therefore entitled to compensation of 85% of the difference. This is despite very good reasons for the police authority terminating his contract.
Taxpayers in North Yorkshire are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets because of a national ruling that makes it almost impossible to remove him without us picking up the tab.
This case has far reaching consequences. As mentioned in the report in the Yorkshire Post today, what if the new Police and Crime Commissioner wants to remove a chief constable for similar reasons? What if a chief constable has lost public confidence because crime rates are rising and the measures they have put in place are not working? Under these nationally agreed regulations, chief constables are sitting in a very comfortable position. They know if they are not doing their job properly they will be compensated handsomely if they are removed from their posts.
This is something the government needs to investigate. High salaries are paid so the public have the best people in charge of law and order in their communities. They do not pay high salaries for those at the top to leave on massive payouts after they have been found wanting, or in the case of Mr Maxwell, been found guilty of misconduct.
Despite the police service having to reduce its budget, Mr Maxwell will leave his post with a lump sum of £200K. This is because he is not entitled to receive a full pension until he has completed 30 years service. He is just eighteen months short of that milestone, and unless he manages to get another job between now and May (when he is due to leave) he must be compensated because his lump sum after twenty eight and a half years will be less than half of what it would have been after 30 years. He is therefore entitled to compensation of 85% of the difference. This is despite very good reasons for the police authority terminating his contract.
Taxpayers in North Yorkshire are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets because of a national ruling that makes it almost impossible to remove him without us picking up the tab.
This case has far reaching consequences. As mentioned in the report in the Yorkshire Post today, what if the new Police and Crime Commissioner wants to remove a chief constable for similar reasons? What if a chief constable has lost public confidence because crime rates are rising and the measures they have put in place are not working? Under these nationally agreed regulations, chief constables are sitting in a very comfortable position. They know if they are not doing their job properly they will be compensated handsomely if they are removed from their posts.
This is something the government needs to investigate. High salaries are paid so the public have the best people in charge of law and order in their communities. They do not pay high salaries for those at the top to leave on massive payouts after they have been found wanting, or in the case of Mr Maxwell, been found guilty of misconduct.Grahame Maxwell, the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire Police, will be leaving his post next year after the police authority decided it was not going to renew his fixed-term contract. He has been the chief for five years. The reason he is leaving is because earlier this year he was found guilty of gross misconduct.
Despite the police service having to reduce its budget, Mr Maxwell will leave his post with a lump sum of £200K. This is because he is not entitled to receive a full pension until he has completed 30 years service. He is just eighteen months short of that milestone, and unless he manages to get another job between now and May (when he is due to leave) he must be compensated because his lump sum after twenty eight and a half years will be less than half of what it would have been after 30 years. He is therefore entitled to compensation of 85% of the difference. This is despite very good reasons for the police authority terminating his contract.
Taxpayers in North Yorkshire are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets because of a national ruling that makes it almost impossible to remove him without us picking up the tab.
This case has far reaching consequences. As mentioned in the report in the Yorkshire Post today, what if the new Police and Crime Commissioner wants to remove a chief constable for similar reasons? What if a chief constable has lost public confidence because crime rates are rising and the measures they have put in place are not working? Under these nationally agreed regulations, chief constables are sitting in a very comfortable position. They know if they are not doing their job properly they will be compensated handsomely if they are removed from their posts.
This is something the government needs to investigate. High salaries are paid so the public have the best people in charge of law and order in their communities. They do not pay high salaries for those at the top to leave on massive payouts after they have been found wanting, or in the case of Mr Maxwell, been found guilty of misconduct.