Agenda item

Consideration was given to a report of the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer detailing the recommendations of the Independent Remuneration Panel, following their reconvention after the reduction in the size of the Council from 34 to 28 Members.

 

An amendment to the proposals of the Independent Remuneration Panel was proposed and seconded as follows:

 

Amendment to Recommendation on Item 8:

Add at end of a:

 

Subject to the amendments detailed below in respect of clauses 4.b, 4.c & 4.d

 

Amend clause 4.b to read:

 

Chair of Service boards, and Regulatory board: £5000

 

Amend clause 4.c to read:

 

Chair of Standards and Audit sub board: £2500

 

Amend clause 4.d to read:

 

Deputy leader of the council and vice-chair of the Policy & Organisation

Board: £5,000

 

Vice-chairs of Service boards and Regulatory board: £2,500

 

Vice-chair of the Standards and Audit sub-board: £1,250

 

Delete clause 5

 

Add a new c at end:

 

Council notes that thanks to the reduction in the number of councillors from

34 to 28, the decision not to back-date new allowances, and the decision of the

New council administration to reduce the number of service boards thereby

Saving £14520.09 in special responsibility allowances paid to board chairs,

The new liberal democrat administration will be saving council taxpayers over

£32,000 in Councillor allowances in the 2022/23 financial year compared to the

Sum spent by the former Conservative administration in 2021/22.

 

It was requested and granted that the meeting be adjourned to allow time to consider the proposed amendment.

 

The meeting adjourned at 18:29 and reconvened at 18:39.

 

The Leader of the Council advised that he was grateful for the work of the panel and acknowledged that there had been a lot of voluntary time and commitment to undertaking the review.

 

It was acknowledged that the report was independent and that the Council was permitted to amend recommendations should it wish to.

 

The Leader of the Council advised that there was additional work for Councillors since the reduction in the number of elected Members and that the uplift proposed reflected this. The £250 per annum, equated to less than £5 a week, which was taxable.

 

The proposed allowance for the Chairs of the Service Boards and the Group Leaders was not proposed to be changed and the reduction in the number of Boards would equate to a saving compared to what had previously been spent.

 

The Leader felt that the Vice Chairmen should receive an allowance for their role as they were required to deputise and attend meetings and that the proposed amendment ensured that those undertaking the work were compensated for doing so.

 

A Member advised that the proposed savings were in large the result of the reduction in the number of elected Members as dictated by the Boundary Commission, not as a result of the proposed amendments to the Independent Remuneration Panel’s report and that theproposed amendments would reduce the saving published in the Budget from £40,000 to £30,000 as a result of the additional payments to Vice Chairman.

 

Some Members felt that the claim that the proposal would save the taxpayer money was misleading and inappropriate and that the reduction in the number of Boards, and the reduction in number of seats was regrettable and that the time given to consider the proposed amendment and the report had not been sufficient. 

 

Members advised that the percentage increase to some Councillors was significantly more than being received in the public sector pay award many of which were struggling with the cost of living increase and as a result, some Members indicated that they would not be accepting the proposed uplift in allowance.

A Member advised that they wished to know who had been interviewed by the panel and reiterated their complaint about the lateness of the report.

 

A Member advised the Council that the papers had been available online for 5 days and that amendments to a report would usually be tabled at the meeting.

 

A Member suggest that the Council needed to consider the Nolan Principles within their debate and proposal and reminded the Council that an element of the work undertaken by Councillors was voluntary.

 

 

It was acknowledged that the rates of allowance paid to Gosport Councillors were less than those in other Local Authorities.

 

 

A vote was taken on the amendment and it was requested that the vote be a named vote.

 

The vote was as follows:

FOR the amendment.

 

Councillors Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Durrant, Earle, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Marshall, Maynard, Pepper, The Mayor.

 

AGAINST the amendment.

 

Councillors Beavis, Burgess, Casey, Gledhill, Huggins, Jessop, Morgan, Philpott, Raffaelli, Scard,

 

The motion was therefore CARRIED.

 

A vote was taken on the substantive motion and it was requested that a recorded vote be taken as follows:

 

FOR the substantive motion 

 

Councillors Ballard, M Bradley, K Bradley, Chegwyn, Cox, Cully, Durrant, Earle, Hammond, Herridge, Hylands, Johnston, Kelly, Marshall, Maynard, Pepper, The Mayor.

 

AGAINST the substantive motion.

 

Councillors Beavis, Burgess, Casey, Gledhill, Huggins, Jessop, Morgan, Philpott, Raffaelli, Scard,

 

The substantive motion was therefore CARRIED.