Same Job, Different Hat
As the debate continues about public spending cuts - I have a suggestion to make which is completely pain free - and would have the great advantage of releasing some extra funds to support front-line services.
Glasgow councillors who collectively earn £250,000 a year in extra 'top-up' fees - should do the decent thing and return this money to the city council's coffers.
The payments are on top of the salaries already paid to Glasgow's councillors - and are paid simply for sitting on arm's length companies - such as Cordia and City Building.
Glasgow's arm's length companies now deliver council services which - until recently - were delivered by good old-fashioned council departments.
But the payments have been roundly criticised for effectively paying councillors twice - for doing the same job wearing a different hat.
Now £250,000 won't solve all of Glasgow's spending issues - but every little helps.
Glasgow City Council (2 April 2011)
Glasgow City Council has been paying some of its councillors extra 'top-up' fees - worth up to £20,000 - for sitting on arm's length companies such as Cordia - which provides many of the council-run care and eduction services.
The cost to the taxpayer is over £250,000 a year - and the payments have been roundly criticised by an independent body which advises the Scottish government on councillors' remuneration.
But the council is now in turmoil because the SNP group have proposed that the payments should stop - which has angered the Labour group within the council.
The unedifying argy bargy is reported extensively in The Herald today - but the big question is why would the Labour group want to defend these payments?
The £250,000 involved could be put to far better use - and it is clearly not right that councillors are being paid twice for simply doing their jobs - which is what these top-up payments are all about.
For example, the Chair of the new arm's length Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) - gets an extra £20,000 a year simply because the DLO is now an arm's length organisation.
Quite what the extra £20,000 is for - is a mystery to most people.
The Labour group should be ashamed of its position on this issue - there really is no defence.
Glasgow councillors who collectively earn £250,000 a year in extra 'top-up' fees - should do the decent thing and return this money to the city council's coffers.
The payments are on top of the salaries already paid to Glasgow's councillors - and are paid simply for sitting on arm's length companies - such as Cordia and City Building.
Glasgow's arm's length companies now deliver council services which - until recently - were delivered by good old-fashioned council departments.
But the payments have been roundly criticised for effectively paying councillors twice - for doing the same job wearing a different hat.
Now £250,000 won't solve all of Glasgow's spending issues - but every little helps.
Glasgow City Council (2 April 2011)
Glasgow City Council has been paying some of its councillors extra 'top-up' fees - worth up to £20,000 - for sitting on arm's length companies such as Cordia - which provides many of the council-run care and eduction services.
The cost to the taxpayer is over £250,000 a year - and the payments have been roundly criticised by an independent body which advises the Scottish government on councillors' remuneration.
But the council is now in turmoil because the SNP group have proposed that the payments should stop - which has angered the Labour group within the council.
The unedifying argy bargy is reported extensively in The Herald today - but the big question is why would the Labour group want to defend these payments?
The £250,000 involved could be put to far better use - and it is clearly not right that councillors are being paid twice for simply doing their jobs - which is what these top-up payments are all about.
For example, the Chair of the new arm's length Direct Labour Organisation (DLO) - gets an extra £20,000 a year simply because the DLO is now an arm's length organisation.
Quite what the extra £20,000 is for - is a mystery to most people.
The Labour group should be ashamed of its position on this issue - there really is no defence.
