I DO not suppose that anyone was surprised to read that West Devon Borough councillors had voted themselves a gigantic increase in allowances at a cost of £100,000 to council tax payers. What is surprising are the fatuous and arrogant remarks reportedly made by some councillors in an attempt to justify their decision.
Cllr Mathew, you report, said; 'There is nothing we can do about this — these are the recommendations of an independent panel'. What nonsense, of course there were other options available. Councillors could have voted to reject the IRP report, to accept the recommendations in principle but decline to take the full increase, to phase the increases in over a period or a combination of the last two options.
Cllr Waterhouse, you report, said he did not regard £6 or £5 an hour either unreasonable or excessive. There are thousands of people in the borough working in excess of 40 hours per week, at the national minimum wage of slightly over £4 an hour, who would disagree with him. In comparison, £5 or £6 an hour for a voluntary, part-time occupation seems both unreasonable and excessive.
You report that the old system of attendance allowance is scrapped. If that means that councillors will receive at least £3,400 per year (£65 per week) regardless of their attendance record then the word 'sinecure' immediately springs to mind.
The next time West Devon councillors claim lack of funds as an excuse for cancelling or reducing a service I hope the electorate will remember the decision made on September 24. Unfortunately, the tax payers, who will have to find these increases, have no effective redress against their councillors' decision. The most we can do is throw them out of office at the next opportunity but, I fear, they would only be replaced by others only too willing to accept the status quo.
Charles Letchford
6 Vicarage Road
Okehampton
WHAT sort of democracy do we have when councillors are able to vote unto themselves an increase in allowances, without reference to, or in consultation with, those that have to provide the money?
Are we, as tax payers, to be so ignored? Not worthy of consultation? Is it that the councillors cannot substantiate this increase and therefore decided not to consult us?
When people place themselves before the electorate as candidates for office, they surely know what that office entails - and the financial implications? If they then do as has been done here, I consider that they have deceived us as to their suitability for that office.
Only one councillor voted against the increase, but even then it was not a complete rejection, just a comment that it should be 'phased'. By the time that package has been phased, the next would be in the pipeline. No doubt we will now be subject to an annual review of expenses.
Based on a very crude estimate of the number of council tax payers in the borough, I arrive at something around £5 extra for each of us to pay, just to fund the additional £100,000.
On top of that is the statement of the borough treasurer that the council has to find an additional £483,000. The treasurer gave no indication of the reasons for this money being needed, except for the councillors' allowance increase. I wonder if it includes the expenditure on reorganisation of the office accommodation, or is that, too, something we are not to be told about? I suspect it might even be something about which the councillors themselves are not cognisant.
West Devon is a very small borough in population terms, with a commensurate income. The councillors and the officers must understand that the expenditure has to fit the income, not the other way round. Let us therefore stop spending money unnecessarily and start saving it instead.
Brian Salt
Cruets
The Village
Buckland Monachorum