Banner
any day today rss facebook twitter

Bonkers Blog October 2011

Index: 2009201020112012201320142015201620172018

10 October (Part 2) - Inaccurate and misleading

Inaccurate and misleading
Bexley council is still harping on about the petition against fat cat salaries, I’m beginning to think they are worried. One of their excuses is that Will Tuckley controls a £500 million pound budget - as if that is a valid reason. How big a budget does any government minister control? Far more than that and on half Tuckley’s salary. Earlier today I was reading how Wiltshire County Council with a billion pound budget paid their Chief Executive £183,000 and decided that even that was too much and dropped the post entirely. Bexley’s £500 million budget excuse is totally irrelevant.

If you work your way through the nightmare that is Bexley council’s website you will eventually find the page that includes the text in the panel above. It includes the link http://www.bexley.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6814 but it is not active, they make you type it out as deterrent to looking.

When you get to the page it is about Will Tuckley only. The introductory page says it covers all senior managers. Inaccurate and misleading?

If the intention was to inform, all the data would be clearly tabulated, but it is not. It is a long and less than comprehensive narrative which fails to mention the total remuneration, just the component parts. Inaccurate and misleading?

The page says that the poor Chief Executive has to work some evenings and weekends and is on call for emergencies and doesn’t get paid extra for it. That is exactly what any middle or senior manager would expect. It’s identical to the conditions I enjoyed before retirement. The page fails to mention the council’s Flexi-time arrangements and the Time off in lieu scheme. Inaccurate and misleading?

Does Tuckley’s generous Annual Leave entitlement of 32 days a year include Public Holidays or not? It doesn’t say but what do you think? Answer.

The page confirms the £208,983 figure used on the petition and separately mentions the £8,264 payment if there is an election. £7,077 towards running a car - with the alternative of taking the cash. £2,829 allowance for hospitality etc. The 20% of salary paid by the council towards his pension scheme. Who is being misleading here? Bexley council? Or the petitioners who didn't want to over-egg the pudding by telling residents the real cost of Will Tuckley? The Taxpayers’s Alliance put Tuckley's benefits above £240,000 a year ago. The total cost could be close to £270,000. The petitioner’s figure is neither inaccurate nor misleading but Bexley council’s webpage is not as transparent as they like to make out.

Interesting to see how a handful of mainly elderly gentlemen can panic Bexley council so easily.

 

Return to the top of this page