By admin 
At the full council meeting at the Wolverhampton Civic Center, members of the opposition parties and independent councilors spoke out against the planned increase in the salary of Wolverhampton Council CEO Tim Johnson, with many citing service cuts and council tax increases as part of their resistance.
There was also a protest outside the Civic Center by Conservative councilors and members of the TaxPayers Alliance.
Benjamin Elks, grassroots development manager for the TaxPayers Alliance, said the purpose of the protest was to raise awareness among council members that now was not the right time to increase CEO pay.
He said: “At a time when the council has increased council tax and is looking to make savings this year, increasing CEO salaries is not really a priority.
“It’s not good timing as parking charges have doubled from £4.50 to £9, services are being cut and they are trying to make £7 million in savings and yet they seem to want to slap the chef. managerial.
‘Ideally we would want to force a change and would certainly be open to meeting with the CEO and board if they were willing to meet, but they were presented with options and, strangely, the official report advised them take the higher elevation, so you wonder if you’re getting an objective view.”
Members of the TaxPayers Alliance protest outside the Wolverhampton Civic Center
The authority had ordered a review of executive pay by consultancy Penna, which presented three possible options that would see Mr Johnson’s pay rise by 10.7 per cent in the least expensive scenario, up to a maximum of 17.9 percent in the most expensive case.
Chief Operating Officer David Pattison’s report recommended that councilors approve the option that provided the largest increase in the pay scale.
“This is to position the authority so that it reflects the wider market and recognizes the way in which the postal service provides leadership, both within the city and beyond,” the report said.
“It is also the option that best reflects the pay scale for CEO posts across the West Midlands Combined Authority members, where the most attractive opportunities outside of Wolverhampton may become available for senior roles in the coming months and years.”
During the Council meeting, some brief comments were made from both sides on the planned increase, which was the first of three options and would see the CEO’s salary increase in five steps from £178,152 to £200,000.
The council’s leader, Councilor Stephen Simkins, said the council was an employer of choice with a people-centred approach, with inclusivity at the cornerstone of what the council did and a fair pay structure part of that.
He also said arguments and comparisons over CEO pay versus the Prime Minister were unfair, saying: “We cannot compare apples and oranges and their appropriate pay comparisons, between politicians and politics and between officers and officers.
“This is a way that creates instability and we all have to do the best we can because like I said, we’re all in this together.”
Councilor Simkins said that of the three options put forward in the independent report, he proposed agreeing to Option One, stating that this would result in an additional saving of £10,000.
Wolverhampton Council’s full council will hear about the proposed pay rise
In the ensuing debate, a number of members of the opposition Conservative Party voiced their objections to the proposals.
Bushbury North Councilor Andrew McNeil described the plans as “perverse” and said they made no sense if there was no obligation to do so and if Council staff and residents suffered the impact of budget cuts.
He said: “Why on earth would we do this, for no reason other than ticking a box, and if this has nothing to do with the CEO himself.
“There is no performance around the pay element, it’s just someone in a post getting £40,000 in a tough time, while others get a pittance, while pensioners don’t get their winter fuel allowance and we are faced with a real high council. taxes.
“It just doesn’t make sense.”
Conservative leader councilor Simon Bennett also questioned why the increase came in, citing the financial challenges facing councils across the country.
He also said the council should prioritize tax increases, rather than salary increases, and said the planned salary increase was comparable to the annual salary of many frontline workers.
He said: “These are the people who make tangible differences in our community every day, the ones who keep our streets clean, maintain our public spaces and work directly with residents in need.
Councilor Simon Bennett said the proposed increase was comparable to full pay for frontline workers
“Some of them are wondering if they will still have a job in the coming months, while this proposal provides a substantial pay increase for a single individual, so how can we justify such a significant increase as putting others on the council payroll face salary cuts or job losses? to lose.”
Councilor Bennett also urged the council to reconsider the increase and asked the Labor group to give them the same discretion for an open vote.
Newly elected Reform Party councilor for Bilston North, Anita Stanley, asked about a management structure within the council, rather than a pyramid structure, while Conservative councilor for Merry Hill, Wendy Dalton, spoke about the comparison between the Prime Minister and Mr Johnson , and said that the Prime Minister worked 24 hours a day, seven days a week and had much more attention paid to him than the general manager.
She said she had no problem with someone getting a raise, but questioned the high rate on offer. I’ve had a review and I have to pay them another £40,000.
“They signed a contract and accepted a wage. I don’t understand why we are seeing such a large wage increase while municipal workers only get a 2.4 percent increase.”
Tettenhall Wightwick Independent councilor Wendy Thompson said she had spoken to residents about the proposed increase and said the response was about value for money and not about the wishes of the public.
Councilor Steve Evans said the quotes surrounding comments were inaccurate and explained what was being proposed
The debate intensified, with councilor Steve Evans, who had supported the proposal, saying the quotes about the £40,000 increases were incorrect and pointing out that the amount proposed was option one, the lowest of the three.
He also pointed to private sector wages and how the board had a duty to review wages and had not done so for the CEO for almost six years. He said opposition bench members had opposed a number of wage and investment plans in recent years. year.
He said: ‘Please don’t lecture us on caring positions because it was not so long ago that my good colleague in this Chamber spoke about investing in Wolverhampton on Coopers Lane for our children in care, and that was opposed by Conservative councilors .
“The reality is that Labor has always stood for fairness and we are funding this by cutting a position, without placing any additional financial burden on our resources.”
Other Conservative and Independent councilors also spoke about the plans, with Independent Penn Councilor Celia Hibbert decrying the abolition of the Shopability program and Conservative Penn Councilor Stephanie Haynes speaking about increasing parking rates and how the only other council with a higher paid CEO was the “bankrupt” Birmingham Council.
Conservative councilors for Tettenhall Regis Uday Singh and Sohail Khan were the last two to speak, with Councilor Singh questioning the comparison between pay rises between the private and public sectors, while Councilor Khan said that while he would not begrudge anyone a good wage, said it felt wrong to consider this pay increase when people in the city were struggling.
In response, Councilor Simkins said it was a regulated market rate position and all CEOs were on a market-driven pay scale.
He also asked the opposing party and councilors to come up with a suitable alternative plan, saying the plan was about performance and delivery across the organisation, not just one person. He asked whether they would prefer a council without a chief executive.
In the subsequent vote for Option One, the motion was passed and will be forwarded to the council’s next cabinet meeting.