Agenda item

This report sets out the response to an issue raised by Councillor Osborne concerning the costs of the Mayoralty. 

Discussion:

The Committee considered a report that set out the response to an issue raised under the Medway Constitution Overview and Scrutiny Rules (chapter 4, part 5, paragraph 9.1) by Councillor Osborne concerning the costs of the Mayoralty.

Councillor Osborne introduced the report by stating that the purpose of the report was not to criticise any past or present Mayors or Deputy Mayors but to scrutinise the budget that supported the mayoralty. There had been an 18% reduction in funding from the Government in the last three years and there had been no corresponding reductions in the mayoralty budget although most other budgets had experienced reductions. He stated that the public were interested in the overspend on vehicles and staffing and referred to a couple of other authorities that shared mayoralty staff with other departments and some that had moved to leasing vehicles to save money. The Council needed to be responsible with public funds and that this information should be in the public domain. At mayoralty charity events, tickets were often sold at prices that were cheaper than if the event was not for charity and Councillors and their partners were therefore receiving discounts that should be open for scrutiny. Councillor Osborne also referred to the fact that some charity events had had to be cancelled due to lack of interest. Also the delineation of responsibility between the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor was of concern. The Deputy Mayor carried out 81 duties in a year that equated to two engagements a week and this demonstrated that the duties needed to be equalised or it should be considered whether the roles were needed. Table 3 in the report showed the food and drinks costs and this should be clear to the public. There had been reductions in frontline services, in schools budgets, in highways repairs and bus service costs were increasing. Councillor Osborne concluded that there should be scrutiny of mayoralty and leadership costs.

The Deputy Director of Customer Contact, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance responded by stating that this was a comprehensive report and he summarised the main sections. He welcomed the transparency the report brought and he stated that all budgets were monitored and managed closely. The department had delivered all the savings required and the report showed that there was a very lean mayoralty team. He concluded that there was a distinction between the roles of Executive Mayors and Ceremonial Mayors.

Members asked questions and made comments as follows:

Council’s Budget Process – A question was raised about why Councillor Osborne had not raised these issues during the Council’s budget process. Councillor Osborne responded that he had requested a Member’s report and had wanted to see the report before making a judgement.

Shared Responsibility – Some Councillors considered that the duties of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor should be shared more equally. Reference was made to the former councils in Medway before 1998 which meant that Medway’s Mayor and Deputy Mayor had a greater geographical area and it was not good to disappoint those who have requested the Mayor to attend their functions. If Medway did not have a Mayor, the Council would still have to hold corporate and reciprocal events and these would require funding. A former Mayor advised that when the Mayor was invited to an event, be it a grand function or a nursery school, then the Mayor was expected. This caused some of the discrepancy in duty numbers between the two roles.

Intangible Benefits – It was considered that there were intangible benefits for the Council from the office of the Mayor linked with raising the public’s awareness of the Council, spreading positive news, developing civic pride etc.

Budget – Most Councillors considered it was correct to scrutinise the budget. Some felt that a static budget showed that the allocated funding was at the correct level and some felt savings should be made in line with other teams in the Council.

Independent Review Panel – It was suggested that the Special Responsibility Allowances (SRAs) in relation to the Mayor and Deputy Mayor be scrutinised again by the Independent Review Panel (IRP)

Non- attendance of Councillors at the Mayor-Making – In response to a question on why some Opposition Councillors chose not to attend the Mayor-making ceremony, the Committee was advised that some Councillors did not attend the ceremony because of the removal of the points system in relation to the election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor.

Mayoral Responsibilities – The level of commitment to being Mayor was considered by those who had undertaken the role to be very high. The Mayor needed to respond to demand and a generally high demand had only reduced very temporarily in the face of recession. The role was a drain on the Mayor’s personal finances, work and free time.

It was confirmed to the Committee that any of the Council’s political parties were able to nominate a Councillor to be Mayor or Deputy Mayor.

Councillor Osborne concluded by thanking the Chairman and the Deputy Director of Customer Contact, Leisure, Culture, Democracy and Governance. He considered that an annual review of the mayoralty budget would be a good idea and sharing staff would reduce costs.

Decision:

a)         The Committee noted the report;

b)                 The Committee requested that the next Independent Review Panel (IRP) be requested to review the Special Responsibility Allowances of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor; and

c)                  The Committee expressed its appreciation to all Mayors and Deputy Mayors past and present.