At Lutfur Rahman’s first full council as mayor in October 2010, the East London Advertiser reported the following:
Lutfur Rahman will not have appreciated that his first matter of council business last night (October 27) as the borough’s new mayor was a £10,000 cut to his salary.
Appearing at the first council meeting at the Town Hall in Mulberry Place since his election, he spoke of his pride in his new role in front of over 100 supporters in the public gallery.
Tower Hamlet’s first-ever directly-elected mayor also rewarded his campaign manager, Ohid Ahmed, by appointing him as deputy mayor but will wait until November 11 to announce his cabinet.
Mr Rahman’s joy at the occasion soon turned to dismay though as he accused the council’s Labour Group of pettiness in putting forward an amendment to cut his annual salary from £75,095 to £65,000.
The amendment to a constitutional report, which also limits the number of paid advisers the Mayor can employ, was passed by the council.
Mayor Rahman said: “It saddens me on the first day that we indulge in this kind of petty politics.
“During my two years as council leader I was the only leader in this council’s history that took a 25 per cent pay cut for the year.
“Let me say, I don’t do this for money but let me remind you I have given up a successful legal career and a partnership in a legal firm.
“What drives me is will and the urge to serve. I am happy with whatever I am paid.”
The mayors of Hackney, Lewisham and Newham earn salaries of between £75,000 and £78,000 a year.
Speaking to the council, Labour councillor Josh Peck, chairman of the working group which put forward the constitutional report, said there had been an ‘oversight’ after the report was originally agreed in August.
At an internal Labour meeting in September, members narrowly voted to increase the salary for the full-time role to £75,000 but Mr Peck told The Advertiser today this shouldn’t have been included in the report because it was not agreed by other parties.
Last night, Labour, Conservative and Lib Dem councillors all voted in favour of the amendment.
But Independent councillor Oliur Rahman, one of the ‘gang-of-eight’ councillors expelled from the Labour Party for backing Lutfur Rahman’s mayoral bid, said: “This can only be a petty and cynical response to losing an election.”
Mr Peck replied that the lower salary was set before mayoral candidates were selected and said the new mayor proposed a salary of £32,000 before he was shortlisted.
He said today: “£65,000 is the right salary, it is a good salary.”
This coming Wednesday, the full council will in Item 11 debate the pay arrangements for elected representatives over the coming year.
In an email to councillors eight days ago, Mayor John Biggs explained the proposal from the majority Labour group (which is likely to pass).
This is the proposed table of pay:
[Since his email, proposed pay rises have been suggested for the Speaker to £10,000 and for the Deputy Speaker to £5,000.]
First off, let’s have these facts in our minds: 1) deep Government cuts affecting frontline services; 2) pay for most local government employees is proposed to go up by just 1% this year; 3) councillors’ pay has remained frozen for a number of years; 4) some councillors rely on their allowances as sole (declared) income (not a good thing); and 5) very many councillors work extremely hard, while others do not.
Under these proposals, there will be inflation-busting pay rises for everyone. Basic pay for all councillors will go up by 5.3%. Oli Rahman would see his Special Responsibility Allowance for being leader of the THING go up to £11,300 (7.5%); and Tory leader Peter Golds would have a 40% jump in his SRA from £5,709 to £8,000. The total pot paid to councillors for all these roles would rise 6%.
But most of the political backlash will no doubt focus on John Biggs.
As I’m sure you’ve already spotted, the proposed mayoral salary goes back to the figure slashed by Labour more than five years ago – to £75,000. He has announced he accept only half that rise this year (to around £70k), and will take the rest next year if progress has been made. And although he’s entitled to £11,300 as a majority group leader, I think I’m right in saying he doesn’t take that.
I asked John to justify the rise in the context of cuts and value for money. His answer below is damning of his predecessor’s work ethic (something that is echoed among senior officers). This is what he told me:
Because of the stand-off between the former mayor and council there had been no proper review of allowances for some years. The proper time for such changes is in my view in the period immediately following the elections but this was missed.
I am proposing a number of changes to committees and structures and as a part of this a short review of allowances. I have informed and involved the opposition leaders in these discussions. The main change is to update the general allowance paid to all members. Increases are also proposed for those holding Special Responsibilities (SRAs), and for the Mayor.
If agreed the Tower Hamlets allowances will become fairly average for London and our Mayor would remain the lowest paid. If the Council agreed the change to my allowance I would only take half of it, with the other half next year provided we have made further progress in sorting the Council out.
As a further consideration for members, particularly those who rely on their allowances for a significant part of their income, it is worth noting that the Government recently banned members from membership of the pension scheme, which included employers contributions of over 10% on top of their allowance. This loss is partially also reflected in the updating of allowances proposed.
As far as the cuts argument is concerned: there is never a good time to agree allowances, but all are within or below the range suggested by an independent panel for all London councillors, whose report guided us. However, the increased cost of about £46,000 should be considered against the saving of about £300,000 in the costs of operating the Mayor’s office, and the mayors allowance compared the the scrapping of the chauffeured car, which saved about £30,000 a year.
A comparison with council staff is tempting but is based on soft foundations – whereas for example many council officers receive increments, promotions or upgrading, plus an annual increase in most years, elected members have no such opportunities and do not have secure employment as councillors, while making in most cases great personal and career sacrifices. It’s quite right that these are tough times but the proposals are a recommendation and up to the Council to agree or reject.
As regards my workload and whether I am worth a reasonable pay that is for others to judge, but I work at least 80 hours a week, am at my desk by 7.15am most mornings, getting home normally after 10pm. As an indicator, I read and respond to about 1000 emails a week, with more than this dealt with by my office. The council is in a worse state than I had expected – beyond the headlines of the misbehaviour of the previous mayor a whole number of key decisions had been missed, in an outrageous failure of leadership. Were it not for the superb effort and commitment of many of our officers we would be in a far worse state.
I anticipate working at this level for the foreseeable future. The previous Mayor on the other hand, as far as I can tell, rarely appeared before the afternoon, generally failed to keep appointments, never sent emails on official business and appears to have ‘kicked the can down the road’ where leadership was needed.
Those who said he was a hero should more accurately perhaps have scored him as a zero. And the borough will take some time to recover. It takes serious and dedicated effort to do that.
An executive mayor is full time job. If he had more hair, John I’m sure would say he’s a L’Oreal mayor (“because I’m worth it”.) Is he? What do you think?
He’s going to get a lot of flak for this – and as it was Labour which cut Lutfur’s pay, he knows where to point the finger of blame…
Personally, I think if he does the job well, he deserves it. I have more concern over SRAs paid to other councillors, and it will be interesting to examine who gets which posts for the coming year and then to check their attendance records thus far.
The notion that has been around for some time that pay needs to be measured against the private sector is one of the reasons why completely and utterly ridiculous salaries are now paid to officers. There are plenty of excellent candidates out there who do NOT need to be paid the salaries now being offered.
There used to be a maxim that the highest paid officer should be paid seven times the lowest paid officer – with everybody else fitting in in-between. It’s still a maxim with mileage in it!
My view is that Councils should start low and only if they can’t get somebody good enough then raise salaries on offer. The market rate is the market rate – and it needs to be properly tested!!!
Personally I think if John Biggs is putting in those sort of hours and getting the job done effectively then he may well be worth it. I’m prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
However I’m more concerned by the allowances of Councillors.
Being a Councillor should NOT be considered to be any sort of full time job. Plenty of people hold down full time job and also manage to do an effective job as a Councillor. Indeed the very busy are often very much more effective than those who are “stuck for anything else to do with their lives” types.
Given the very poor quality of some of the councillors and/or lack of effort made by some I’d like to see a much clearer feedback loop for the electorate with respect to the performance of Councillors and what they do for their allowances.
I suggest that any revision of allowances should be accompanied by an enhanced performance scrutiny scheme to aid transparency and accountability to the electorate
For example I’d like to see
1) a record of copies of all letters sent by all Councillors maintained by the Council (so these can be subjected to proper audit as to topics Councillors have involved themselves with and a review made of the quality of the advice given);
2) a record of the NUMBER of letters sent by a councillor should be available to the public; and
3) Councillors should be required to complete a weekly timesheet for the hours they put in – indicating how they allocate their time between committee attendance, surgery hours, visits and letter writing.
4) Performance tables for Councillors indicating who puts in the hours etc
I mean if it’s good enough for the schools and other services then it’s only reasonable to assume this approach should also be applicable to Councillors.
This is after all public money and we are ALL entitled to know what it has been spent on.
We are certainly well past the days of taking a Councillor on trust that what they say they do sufficient to merit the title of Councillor and the remuneration to go with it!
I used to manage & check the timesheet system as part of my job at the London 2012 Olympics but am now a Conservative Councillor who does not fill timesheets in. It would be easy once a week to spend a few minutes putting some numbers in but doing it properly and accurately is more time consuming and I simply do not have the time.
The reason is that I could put anything I want in and who would check it? How would you know what I put in was accurate? Before I was elected I looked at other Cllrs time-sheets and thought the same numbers were being input week after week but they may have been doing everything the same each week? Unless somebody audits the timesheet system like I used to do the numbers may be an illusion. Also where do you draw the line I just spent 4 hours analysing the Mayoral results by ward in an Excel file, was that part of my job as a Cllr or of personal & party interest? Last night I spent 90 minutes working with the police on a speed check programme on the Isle of Dogs but how do I record that? Also a lot of my work is for the Isle of Dogs Neighbourhood Planning Forum which technically is separate from my Cllr role but of value to my residents.
For Conservative Councillors the equation is pretty simple, if we do not do the work, we do not get re-elected, the City & East election results show what a Labour area this is. This is not Surrey where the Tory vote can be weighed. For other parties?
The problem is that most ways of measuring Cllr workload the Council could implement are pretty limited or subject to abuse. The simplest way I think to measure the worth of your Cllr is go to Google search, type in the name of the Cllr followed by Tower Hamlets and see how often their name appears (in a positive way). I can confirm that Mayor John Biggs does put in long hours but then he is in competition with Peter Golds who does an enormous amount of work as well 🙂
Allowances is a tricky subject, like my colleagues I do spend quite a lot of money on transport, printing, political campaigning and do not forget allowances are taxed so for me personally the net take home amount is pretty limited. I think I and my colleagues would do this role for free but the money does help.
PS if you live in E14 & use Facebook join the group I manage Canary Wharf & Isle of Dogs Residents to see what I do.
I agree, Andrew, that the times put on timesheets are useless but where they are important and useful in terms of transparency is in what meetings and events councillors state they’ve been to.
In the past I have been able to highlight inconsistencies with reality.
Ted, if you look at some recent time-sheets there is no requirement to put in specific meeting details just how much time was spent on meetings in total by type.
But I agree with you that it would be quite useful if each Cllr had to register every meeting they attended as that could often be independently verified and would be a useful check of what they are doing. For example I met a major developer Chalgrove this week and that might be useful for my residents to know.
Yes agree. You should point this out to John Pierce.
Casework (residents complaints and problems) is the most conspicuous proof that the often arrogant and uncaring local authority is failing the public it exists to serve.
Speed checks with the local fuzz is nothing to do with the councillor’s responsibility as a member of the local authority.
Some councillors are lazy, avoid casework, ignore the public’s complaints and problems whilst believing they possess inexplicable divine powers including questionable wisdom.
In a London Borough like the Royal Borough of Tower Hamlets, just what are the basic duties and responsibilities of councillors including those not in any position of power or authority ? Apart from occasionally, if ever, pontificating on the authority’s routine matters, just what do they really do to actually improve the local authority’s service to and engagement with the captive population who, unfairly, lack any ability to get better or cheaper services from another local authority ?
Only when one genuinely discovers what councillors are supposed to do, can one begin to think what are they worth in money terms.
There are always exceptionally good and dedicated councillors who throw themselves fully into community work, often to the detriment of their family and social life. Conversely some are crap and not worth a penny.
I think local authorities have too many councillors. Quantity is not always synonymous with quality, so if the crap get removed then the hard-working ones should be paid a lot more to reflect their work for the local community.
Local government is for many senior staff and councillors a publicly-funded gravy train excessively rewarding poor performance with lots of dosh. Meanwhile the public continues to suffer.
Curious Cat
As YCMIU said, I’m happier to pay a fair wage for a mayor who does something for the borough rather than for a mayor who runs it into the ground and bleeds it dry in favour of his mates in the process. Speaking of which, what’s happening about reclaiming both the cost of the court case from The Despicable Rahman and the dodgy grants made to his ‘charities’?
I find the fact that we are paying councillors who do sweet FA distasteful. How long ago was it that being a local councillor was seen as civic duty and you did it because you wanted to do a good job for your local community? Oh yes, it’s that word again – ‘community’; which councillors do the least work for their £10k? The conservative ones? The labour ones? The THF/THING ones? And how does that align with ‘communities’?
The interesting but unsurprising comment is JB’s admission that the council is in a worse state than expected. This doesn’t justify a pay-rise and long working hours can be a sign of inefficiency rather than effectiveness. Councillors are paid an allowance, not a salary. It should never be used or taken as such.
Are you really surprised about this, Labour always likes its snout in the trough.
Reblogged this on Mr Bloggy's East End Guard Dog and commented:
Just how much of a pay rise did Tower Hamlets Mayor and Council Officials give themselves?
Many of the main points have been mentioned but it boils down to the work the person puts in in my view.
If Biggs is doing 80 hours a week on the WORK in his role this equates to a little over £19.50 per hour based od 75k / 48 weeks ( everybody has holidays remember) and at this hourly rate is pretty good value for the remit of the role and responsibility level. I personally in my day job don not work for less than £75P/H
Personally 80 hours a week in the short term is achievable as in the medium/ long term its unstainable for most people as you will just burn out.
Also is not just about the hours being put in, but how effect and productive you are, just being there and going to meetings and events that provide little benefit, should not be counted as work.
Many of the issues and complaints on councillors pay observers have is are they actual doing any work and more importantly are they capable and effective in their roles. This applies to all councillors but particularly to councillors who receive special responsibility payments such as cabinet members etc.
From observation a lot of these members have not been effective or productive as they are in the main voted in to these roles not on capability but on party group politics. This is the same to for appointment to paid positions on outside bodies and grant making institutions made by the council.
John Biggs would have to concede to this view, as why is the council in such a mess as he states. If the cabinet were all effective and productive in their respective and collective roles the council (or at least the majority of it) should be working well. So if it is a mess, why? John needs to explain this at the full council meeting in a detailed statement.
Also what are the councils chief officers doing if this is the situation found, they are being paid (fairly well in most peoples eyes) to run the council effectively in spite of poor political leadership.
Is this a case of the blind leading the partially sited across the battlefield of tower hamlets council services.
For many political office is not about being paid, but being able to bring beneficial changes and well run services to areas they have been elected too. Unfortunately in tower hamlets and many other elected offices it has become this. Using the adage of pay linked to real jobs but with the incumbents receiving their pay not being up to the task and frankly many I would not willingly pay to mow my grass let alone paid to decide my future and services.
Shaddow over the Horizon wrote ……
Agreed in principle, but certainly not many councillors genuinely have that ideal. Some don’t know much about the borough they live in or about the many problems that blighten lesser mortals daily lives.
This is a disgusting move by Biggs & TH Labour group, especially when taking into context the history of members allowances. But is is of no surprise to me now that Biggs has lost his second full-time salary as the GLA member. He is wasting no time in making up for his GLA loss by swiftly replacing it with a whopping £10,000 payrise for himself. He is also giving his silent followers sweeties by increasing all their SRA’s, which now means everyone of his cabinet muppets will be giving themselves a total payrise of £1483.00 each.
Cllr. Joshua Peck chaired what was known as the Constitutional Working Group/Party whose report recommended a £75K salary for Mayor of Tower Hamlets back in 2010. However because Biggs lost to Lutfur Rahman, he then brought forward an amendment to have the CWP agreed salary chopped to £65K. It is interesting how they now choose to increase their own personal salaries when it benefits them financially. All Councillors including Mayor Biggs are well aware of the salary/allowances they will receive when they choose or decide to become a Councillor. Most of them also have a full-time job attracting a full-time salary. It is wrong that now having been elected, they can choose to abuse the power and privilege given to them by the electorate, and use this to fill their own pockets up when residents are being forced to accept cuts to vital services.
But what disgusts me most is the fact that self-proclaimed Mr. Transparency, Cllr. Peter Golds, is happily staying completely quiet over this because his payback from Biggs is a super-duper whopper of a payrise of nearly 42%! What a fabulous payback for the borrowed second votes Golds himself claimed to have awarded victory to Biggs in the mayoral election 2015.
Since I first became a Councillor back in 2006, members allowances have always been an agenda item at very AGM where they are reviewed. As far as I can recall, members never ever proposed to increase allowances. Infact, THF voluntarily decreased cabinet SRA’s by 5% in 2011. So this will be the first time allowances are being increased and new ones introduced by way of mayoral advisers. Local government staff will be lucky to receive a 1% increase, nothing near to the % Biggs and TH Labour are happily giving themselves. And this is on top of the already imposed 4% council tax rise after years of enjoying a council tax freeze from THF that residents are being forced to cough-up amid the serious cuts in services being imposed currently. Nurseries and youth centres being shut-down will have serious consequences upon the future of our young people left to rot on the streets by these greedy Labour and Tory coalition Councillors of Tower Hamlets.
I note Ted Jeory somewhat being lenient upon Biggs on this issue. I will finish with this question. If Biggs is attempting to defend his payrise by telling us how many hours he works, i.e. 7.15am till 10pm most nights as Mayor of Tower Hamlets, then how many hours did he manage to contribute to his full-time salary paid role as GLA member? If he was spending all his hours here at Tower Hamlets, then why have we been paying him a full-time salary as our GLA member? Why has he happily been accepting this second salary for doing no work as our GLA member?
I shall not be accepting the Biggs & Co proposed increase to my members allowance at the expense of cuts faced by residents. I had a choice to stand for Councillor knowing how much allowance I would receive. If not good enough, one should not stand. It will be interesting to watch how many of the Councillors vote for their own payrises. Any Councillor whom accepts these increases should feel ashamed of themselves, not that I expect them to.
Shahed Ali has discovered that most councillors, not all, are in in for the social status and for the money.
Very few care enough to try and make a difference.
How many share the youthful enthusiasm of Andrew Wood ?
So what’s new in the Royal Borough of Tower Hamlets ? What has really changed for the better since HRH King Rahman departed ?
No more portraits on dustcarts or building site hoardings whilst Labour puts their snouts in the trough again.
Shahed Ali, to his credit, mentioned
Well we cynics already know, as do the councillors, kids don’t have votes, so its safe to ignore their needs. There is nothing the kids can do to oust the uncaring councillors who cut their essential services.
If money is really short, why is anyone getting a pay rise when nurseries and youth centres are closing down, or have closed down ????
It’s very too faced to gleefully rub one’s sweat palms together whilst imagining what one will spend the extra cash on, when the borough’s needy – whom the same councillors were elected to SERVE – are having their essential services cancelled. Surely genuinely concerned councillors would put the public’s interest first rather than their own grubby financial interests ?
Yep, what has really changed in the Royal Borough of Tower Hamlets ?
Curious Cat
Perhaps the lying and corrupt ex-Mayor and his councillors who were elected by corrupt and illegals means, would like to return the money they obtained that they were not entitled to, there would be a bit more money to go round.