Heathcote pay rise despite overspending

Press, 24 February 1978, Page 4

Heathcote pay rise despite overspending

Despite the fact that Heath, 'cote County is in a precarious financial position, councillors last night refused to give up the pay rises they voted themselves in December. At its December 20 meeting the council voted to increase the payment to each councillor to $9 per meeting day, to pay committee chairmen $l2 per meeting chaired, to pay the deputy county chairman (Cr R. H. T. Thompson) an additional $450 per year, and to increase the honorarium of the county chairman (Cr J. M. McKenzie) from $l5OO to $4500. Last night the move was strongly but unsuccessfully opposed by Cr R. M. Cunningham and Cr J. Richardson. They had moved and seconded that the pay rises be rescinded in light of the county’s financial plight which, it was confirmed. >s being looked into by the Audit Department. The increases take effect as from November 29. The county chairman’s rise was to have been effective from October 8, but this was changed by amendment.

Cr MacKenzie has asked the advice of the county solicitor (Mr R. A. Young) on the validity of rescinding the rises and was told that it would be perfectly legal to do so, even if there was no provision for the increases in the county estimates.

Cr Richardson, speaking to the motions to rescind the rises, said. “We came into this new council and saw evidence of overspending. We even stopped payment to our creditors and then at the same meeting voted ourselves a rise.” (Cr Richardson had not been present at that meeting). He added: “We should accept what we thought we were going to get when we were elected.”

At one point he hinted that the action had been taken after the news media had left the council chambers and was immediately ruled out of order by Cr MacKenzie for criticising the council, and withdrew the comment. Cr Richardson said that the increases to councillors amounted to about 50 per

icent in two months while rates had increased even I more over the last three (years. The chairman’s inI crease, he said, amounted to i a 200 per cent rise. i Cr B. K. Roberts defended ; the chairman’s increase, ; praising the time and effort ; he had put into the job since I his election, and Cr T. P. ; Wills agreed, saying the rate- ' payers were getting more i (han their money’s worth I from Cr Mackenzie’s efforts.

I It was disclosed that expenditure beyond the esti- ; mates since December was in some cases considerable. Dog control cost the county $2215 ito date, with the original esti(mate at $lOOO. The repairs ; and maintenance account is I likely to be overspent by ;$6500 by the end of the finanjcial year, and the electricity account is believed to be in arrears by more than $50,000.