Subject: Joint Policy - Members Allowances Date: 18-Jan-2002 These are the questions I want asking at the Policy Briefing on Members' Allowances on Wednesday. I won't be able to attend as I will attending to Council Business by being on a Best Value visit to Birmingham. I have no interest in the monetary figures that result from the report, but in the procedure of the review itself. I have used the term "backbenchers" here meaning members who do not have a council post that attracts an SSA. I know it is an unsatisfactory term, but it is the best I can think of at the moment. Some autorities have started using the term "non-executive members". Summery 1.4: The panel's principles included: "Allowances... should include an element for travel... telephones... IT equipment... stationary..." A member's renumeration, labeled as "SALARY" on their payslip, should be their personal income for them to spend on whatever items they so wish. The payslip is a convenient method of paying other monies to members, but this MUST NOT be confused with paying members their own personal "salary". Items such as telephone usage, etc., should be additional items dealt with seperately from a member's "salary". As a point of principle, I refuse to use MY money to pay for my "employer's" business. Telephone calls I make on council business should be paid for by the council. Paper I use on council business should be paid for my the council. I will pay for NONE of this out of my "salary". In addition, items such as telephone calls vary so much from member to member and from month to month that including an element into a member's "salary" would be a nonsense. Unless it was a different amount for different members and different months, which would just be easier to implement by paying for business calls. Summery 2 - Background Documents: 2.1: Information Pack. It is unsatisfactory not to have at least a summery of the contents of the information pack that was provided to panel members. Placing a copy in the Members' Library is useless as there is no way of knowing what is in the Library or of finding anything that is there. 2.2: "The panel recieved a calculation of the average number of 'day sessions' based on the replies received" Some members put time into submitting detailed information about time commitments, including how the time spend varied from week to week, rather than just a plain average. Members expected that this evidence would be passed to the panel. Instead, the panel was just given a single A4 page with ranges and averages for all members. The review boards for other authorities were provided with a more comprehensive breakdown across all members. The Barnsley panel's evidence is particularly exemplary in breaking down members' workload not only by activity, but by 14 different "types" of member, from Leader all the way to backbencher. It, however, is also flawed in the same was as the Sheffield evidence in assuming that all backbenchers have the same workload. In particular, Barnsley members appear to spend no time on preparation for Scrutiny Meetings and only 2 hours on meetings themselves. Does the review board seriously expect the authority to by run by members who spend no time preparing for meetings? There is no consistancy of workload between members. Some backbenchers are members of up to four bodies, some only one. It is possible (but unlikely) for a backbencher to commit more time to the city council than a SSA holder. The panel have not taken this into account as they were not presented with the evidence members supplied detailing this. The sole page of evidence supplied shows that a members workload ranges between 2 and 220 hours! This naturally leads to the implicit assumption that the amount of work a member does is proportional to the SSA-ed posts a member holds, so their renumeration is proportional to their base+SSA payment. This is completely false, as the panel would have discovered if the full evidence submitted by members would had been given to them. All members' workload varies from week to week. However, one "backbencher" can have an average workload of, say, 10 hours per week, and another backbencher an average of 40 hours a week. Simply passing to the panel the average figure of 25 hours a week unjustifiably penalises members who find their workload is greater. A lot of members' workload is dependant on the actual area they represent, not on their council position, and also whether they have the personal time and inclination to commit to putting in the time as a full-time councillor. Summery 3.4: This paragraph very briefly mentions tax implications. Frequently members are told that there are certain allowances that they can claim "from the taxman". This is untrue. There are allowances members can claim to reduce their tax BILL. If a members' income is insufficient to generate a tax bill, the inland revenue do not supply funding. Tax allowances are only of use to members with a sufficiently high income to claim them. Depending on circumstances, a backbencher's total "salary" can be completely covered by their personal tax allowances. I am very dissatisfied that the panel was not given the evidence or did not chose to consider a wider range of ideas. While reluctant to cite Doncaster MBC as an example, their review panel considered the idea of a much lower basic allowance with an SSA to members based on the number of council bodies they served on. This would go towards reflecting the differing hours put in between, for example, a member on only one Board who would get base+1x, and a member on four Boards who would get base+ 4x. As an example, this is the LibDem groups's current (non-Cabinet) placement commitments on major bodies (cabinet, planning, scrutiny, licencing, etc.). There are other commitments members make, but this demonstrates the variety. Some members have commitments outside the council, such as an outside job, and can only commit to a small number of bodies. Some members do not have outside jobs, and can commit to more bodies. Bodies Number Aggregate "value" to the council (members)x(bodies) 4+Chair : 1 * 4.5 4 : 4 **** 16 3+Special Assistant: 3 *** 10.5 3+Chair : 0 0 3 : 7 ******* 21 2+Special Assistant: 1 * 2.5 2+Chair : 3 *** 7.5 2.5 : 3 *** 7.5 2 : 2 ** 4 1+Chair+SpecAss : 1 * 1.5 1+2 Chairs : 1 * 1.5 1+Chair+Dep. Chair : 1 * 1.5 1+Chair : 1 * 1.5 1.5 : 2 ** 3 1 : 3 *** 3 0+Special Assistant: 1 * 0.5 0+Chair : 1 * 0.5 0+Deputy Chair: : 1 * 0.5 TOTAL 36 Note: 36+Cabinet+Lord Mayor=47. Is it a deserving use of the public purse to pay the four members who commit to four bodies that same as the members who commit to only one body? A principle behind paying an SSA is that it reflects the greater workload of the post it pays for. Other review panels (eg Barnsley) called in elected members for interview. There is no indication of whether the Sheffield panel interviewed any elected members, and many collegues have mentioned that they knew of nobody being called for interview. All the other review reports talk about "we requested information", "we interviewed members". The Sheffield panel was supplied with just the single page of average hourly figures. I am considering calling in the report of the review panel to Scrutiny before it goes to Council, to scrutinise the process, not the monetary results. If it is called in, I believe it should be called in by cross-party signitaries. A skimpy twelve-page report cannot do proper justice to this matter. Elected members should not let the carrot of increased allowances blind them to the flaws in the procedure of the review. I shall leave my copy of the Information Pack with Hazel in the Whips Office for people to look at, but I would like it back. -- Cllr J.G.Harston Liberal Democrat Councillor for Walkley Ward Sheffield City Council