On the one hand, we can applaud the decision by Boston councillors not to award themselves a bumper "pay" rise in these current straitened times.
However, the debate leading up to the vote raised some interesting points - not least the attitude of some councillors to the raison d'etre for seeking office.
Councillor leader Richard "Papa Dick" Austin reportedly told the meeting: "In my view, democracy is suffering from these low allowances because it limits the people who can put themselves forward to be a councillor.
"It is only retired people or those with a private income that can afford to be a councillor and the vast majority of the public are therefore excluded."
We're not so sure about this.
Local government history shows numerous examples of people who seek the vote then do the job in tandem with their own daily jobs.
The payments under debate are allowances to compensate councillors for their additional time and trouble - not a wage for doing the job.
The reason most people don't bother seeking election is because they lack motivation or enthusiasm.
The reason many others seek election is usually biased by some motive or another.
We exclude truly independent councillors from that description, as they are the only people whose reason to want to serve is truly transparent, and we wish that there were more of them.
We had to smile at the naivety of Councillor Jim Blaylock, who is quoted as saying that a way to resolve the issue would be to vote in favour of the increases so that members had the option to take it or not.
We can think of a handful of current members of the council who have contributed little if anything to its work whom we believe would be first in line to accept the extra cash if it were offered, so we're glad that this suggestion never made it past the starting post.
And after smiling, we had to laugh out loud at the suggestion by Councillor Richard Lenton, who was reportedly in favour of the increase, when he was quoted as saying that if councillors didn't get any extra money neither should council staff.
Is this man truly portfolio holder for finance?
If so, someone should explain the difference between allowances and salaries to him sooner rather than later.
And finally, we salute the suggestion from Councillor Anne Dorrian for a results-based remuneration system.
"If you come up with a manifesto and in six months time do a U-turn then you wouldn't get paid," she is reported as saying.
Great suggestion, councillor - and one made by Boston Eye several days before the meeting.
Write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your e-mail will be treated in confidence if requested.
Thursday, December 11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I too wished to 'truly serve' but not as an Independent.
My party, UKIP, has a core message of withdrawal from the EU which has no place in local politics and I also pledged to give my council allowances to Lincolnshire charities by allowing the electorate to choose where it went to.
I would like to think that I am truly Independent in that sense whilst representing my party.
Best wishes
Felicity
Post a Comment