News

Wokingham Tories say procedure was followed to the letter in deciding to award more than £6,000 to councillors acting as non-executive directors on council-owned companies
advertisement

Row grows over councillors' £6,000 payments

August 14, 2012

RulingTories have dismissed claims by Liberal Democrats they breached council policy over non-executive director payments.

They say procedure was followed to the letter in the decision to award payments of more than £6,000 to councillors acting as non-executive directors on three council-owned companies. But Lib Dems maintain the matter was ‘sprung’ on them at the executive meeting on July 26 and have issued a formal challenge, maintaining Conservatives are ‘riding roughshod’ over procedure.

Cllr David Lee, leader of Wokingham Borough Council, said he had no apologies to make over the way the decision was taken. He said it would be madness to ask any shareholder representative non-executive directors to put their personal position at risk for no pay.

The row involves non-executive director posts at social care provider Optalis, town centre regeneration company Wokingham Enterprises Ltd and affordable housing provider, Wokingham Housing Ltd.

Cllr Lindsay Ferris, Lib Dem member for Twyford, said the Conservative group did not reveal details of the plan to pay councillors £6,095 at the full council meeting in July when other payments were discussed. He said: “I think it has been sprung on us.” However Cllr Lee said it was stated that payment for non-executive directors was not within the remit of the remuneration panel, hence the reason it was not included at the full council meeting.

“Optalis is projecting to make substantial profits by selling its services to other authorities for the benefit of Wokingham people. The shareholder representative non-executive directors are paid an appropriate amount.”

Cllr Ferris said Lib Dems wanted the issue raised at the Overview & Scrutiny Management Committee on August 23 and referred back to the Executive.

| Submit Comments | View Comments (12)

« Previous Story | Next Story »

Most recent user comments 12 of 12

These companies are owned by us but not subject to the Freedom Of Information Act so it's difficult to find out what they're up to and the Tories appear to prefer it that way.

It certainly doesn't look like we're all in it together does it? Opaque government, councillors giving themselves bonuses while laying off staff, selling off our assets (Elms Field, Outsourcing Libraries, Ryeish Green) and cutting services (toilets, rubbish ).

Only 1 Conservative voted against this.

Anthony Vick
28/08/2012 at 18:04

In the days past we always said that Councillors were in it for their ego, whether this took the form of wanting to feel they were serving their community or merely to feel inflated. NOT ANYMORE THEY DON'T!! The days of Cyril (who served the community loyally for not a jot beyond the pride he felt) are long gone.

Old Man in the Moon, Woodley
16/08/2012 at 11:58

Again the information put out by WBC feels as though it is meant to deceive. They say that Councillors' expenses this year will not increase BUT do not say if the total payments to Councillors will not increase. Clever thinking up new payments!! Can never believe anything the Council puts out as it always appears selective. Of course I cannot say if this is intentional!!

Old Man in the Moon, Woodley
16/08/2012 at 11:50

People who moan about RBC should take a look at these chumps. They once lost a million pounds down a black admin hole and they have a track record of treating employees shoddily. The only good thing about WBC is the Dinton Paradise.

Fondue
16/08/2012 at 09:43

Detailed information from the companies themselves would not be available through FOI - they are set up as limited companies and are not subject to same rules and regulations as the council themselves.

Which is precisely the point I am making - The companies are 100% owned by residents through the council - so why all the secrecy? The dealings of thse limited companies should be as tranparent as the council themselves and they are not.

From your links I see that Wokingham Enterprise Ltd have never published their accounts - thats never since 2009 - the council themselves would not be allowed to get away with that so why should a company they own 100%?

Phil Challis, woodley
15/08/2012 at 11:43

@Phil Challis, here you go FOI made easy:-

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/body/wokingham_borough_council

Local Woky, Wokingham
15/08/2012 at 11:33

Yeah, FOI isn't all it should be. There's no dedicated resource to deal with FOI and very little is recorded accurately and up-to-date, so anything you ask will have to be investigated first. And then the answer has to be re-written in a way that answers your question without revealing all of the details, and that takes some time!

Damiano_Tommassi, Wokingham
15/08/2012 at 11:30

Local Woky - Very helpful - but a FOI is not what I call simple.

Mr Pickles and the governmnet wants councils to be transparent not opaque and the information you can get through this and other websites is very limited. WBC seem to be doing everything to avoid being transparent.

Phil Challis, woodley
14/08/2012 at 19:36

Anyone interested in the financial details of these companies and directors can find them here for free:

https://www.duedil.com/

Here are a few examples of some that WBC own:-

https://www.duedil.com/company/07105213/wokingham-enterprises-limited https://www.duedil.com/company/07630156/optalis-limited

I'm sure there are more, a simple question to WBC under the "Freedom of Information" would provide them all.

Local Woky, Wokingham
14/08/2012 at 18:10

Just to note that the councillors who were responsible for these services before the limited companies were set up and just got their allowances - nothing extra.

Then the Tories decided to take some WBC responsibilities and public services and put them into limited companies (although still 100% owned by residents through WBC) and then they decided to pay themselves more (on top of their original allowances) for running these limited companies -clever eh!

The Conservative leader of the council then tells us that the procedure to pay them as directors has been followed, but it has always been the case that councillor allowances were recommended by an indpendent remuneration committee and agreed by all council members in Full Council.

The companies are 100% owned by residents through the council - so why all the secrecy about payments to councillors now?

Before council activities were transferred to these limited companies (that are still 100% owned by residents through the council), residents, members and opposition could audit/challange what was happening – now it is all hidden. Residents (and Mr Pickles) demand more openness not less – the Tories should not be using these companies to hide public expenditure.

Finally I would ask how will they pay for the £36,000/yr? Well of course they closed public toilets, got rid of dog p** bins, cut services to all but the most critical needs etc. They clearly value themselves more than public service!

Phil Challis, woodley
14/08/2012 at 11:47

Tahir Mahey,

I agree that councillors shouldn't be paid, but what do you make of Labour ramping up council tax over the years and then using a lot of that money for their own pet projects?

Dong-Ding, 3rd world slum
14/08/2012 at 10:42

As a councillor I don't get paid, I have never taken any recompense from my council or my party for anything I have done for them. I became a councillor knowing that and stood for council for things I believe in and to help make the community I live in better.

I was actually quite offended by the comment by Cllr. Lee when he said "If anyone thinks that £6,095 a year is too much, what planet do they live on?" This is such a condescending comment. The reason I am offended is that we have had a bizarre programme of cuts (for example the Tories trying to privatise the libraries, rubbish bins fiasco, closing down council services and redundancies) and against this back ground we have councillors being paid more. Even if they deserve it, I suspect the people who lost their jobs or have been removed from Fosters care home due to the lack of funds are the ones who really deserve to be supported.

Don’t know who is managing them but these Tories are going from one gaff to another.