Jump to content

Recommended Posts

According to FOI investigation in Mail today this is the pay of our top council employees


?198,295 E Kelly Chief Executive

?169,906 Dr R Wallis Director of Public Health

?162,489 D Whitfield Strategic Director of Finance and Corporate Services

?155,945 G Scott Strategic Director of Housing and Community Services

?154,171 D Collins Strategic Director of Environment and Leisure


So the person in charge of Environment and Leisure at Southwark Council is paid more than the PM. Hmmm....

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/82340-southwark-council-pay/
Share on other sites

Deborah Collins - the invisible woman. She has never responded to any emails sent to her and gives the impression she is detached from her area of responsibility. Worrying, as at this level, she is advising the politicians and presumably cannot have a close grasp of the very real level of complaints coming through to, in my experience, poorly managed call centre staff.
I can't find the article I was reading the other day, but if I remember correctly it stated that on average, across the country, roughly 20% of council tax goes towards funding local council pensions. It's not just the headline salaries that are large, its also the defined benefit schemes in the background.
Southwark has a annual turnover of 300m which would put it in the medium-sized business category if you were looking for a private sector comparison. So yes 200k for CEO is a bit toppy looking at industry averages. Plus private sector execs have far more scrutiny on performance which is the bigger problem in my view.

ratty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Why should private sector salaries be higher? I

> would prefer it if my public services were run by

> the best minds and leaders, not the rejects.



Because public service is an end in itself.

Also, the rational in the past, was lower than private sector salary, with very good work/life balance and retirement benefits. But this has morphed into very good salary, very good work/life balance, and extremely good retirement benefits that now generally far exceed those of the private sector. With an estimated 20% of council tax going towards finding final salary pensions (and that's expected to increase dramatically as the pension funding liabilities become larger and larger), I'm not happy to be funding this level of remuneration.

This article from a couple of years ago has a list of all the London boroughs and what the Chief Execs were on.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/the-council-chiefs-on-more-than-200000-in-salary-and-perks-8547953.html


And Southwark was far from the worst.


Barking, Stella Manzie - ?179,250

Barnet, Nick Walkley - ?250,818

Bexley, Will Tuckley - ?244,897

Brent, Gareth Daniel - ?231,853

Bromley, Doug Patterson - ?202,295

Camden, Mike Cooke - ?172,463*

Croydon, Jon Rouse - ?221,180

Ealing, Martin Smith - ?176,908

Enfield, Rob Leak - ?226,761

Greenwich, Mary Ney - ?225,510

Hackney, Tim Shields - ?207,083

H&F/K&C, Derek Myers - ?266,991 (but then I guess they can afford it)

Haringey, Kevin Crompton - ?249,452

Harrow, Michael Lockwood - ?227,274

Havering, Cheryl Coppell - ?195,912

Hillingdon, Hugh Dunnachie - ?187,069

Hounslow, Mary Harpley - ?203,026

Islington, Lesley Seary - ?160,000

Kingston, Bruce Mcdonald - ?224,000

Lambeth, Derrick Anderson - ?229,290

Lewisham, Barry Quick - ?144,531*

Merton, Ged Curran - ?211,785

Newham, Kim Bromley-Derry - ?237,315

Redbridge, Roger Hampson - ?231,099

Richmond, Gillian Norton - ?219,444

Southwark, Annie Shepperd - ?170,310

Sutton, Niall Bolger - ?189,777

Tower Hamlets ,Aman Dalvi - ?104,015 **

Waltham, Forest Martin Esom - ?223,473

Wandsworth, Paul Martin - ?254,880

Westminster, Mike More - ?234,407

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Exactly - a snap election will make things even worse. Jazzer - say you get a 'new' administration tomorrow, you're still left with the same treasury, the same civil servants, the same OBR, the same think-tanks and advisors (many labour advisors are cross-party, Gauke for eg). The options are the same, no matter who's in power. Labour hasn't even changed the Tories' fiscal rules - the parties are virtually economically aligned these days.  But Reeves made a mistake in trying too hard, too early to make some seismic changes in her first budget as a big 'we're here and we're going to fix this mess, Labour to the rescue' kind of thing . They shone such a big light on the black hole that their only option was to try to fix it overnight. It was a comms clusterfuck.  They'd perhaps have done better sticking to Sunak's quiet, cautious approach, but they knew the gullible public was expecting an 24-hour turnaround miracle.  The NIC hikes are a disaster, I think they'll be reversed soon and enough and they'll keep trying till they find something that sticks.   
    • Totally agree with you.  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
    • It took the Tories 14 years to dig that 20bn blackhole. It's taken Labour 14 months to double it.  You cant get rid of Reeves though because the next person will actually be totally incompetent. There are no MPs in Labour capable of performing better than the current shower.
    • Thanks P. That sounds like a bargain compared to other horror stories I've heard! 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...