Can We Have Our Money Back Please?

News that in 2009 £18,350 paid to then KCC Chief Executive Peter Gilroy for running the KCC elections was "inappropriate and not permitted in law" has been slammed by Kent County Councillor Tim Prater.

A report to the Electoral and Boundary Review Committee of 21 June 2011 says, regarding the County Returning Officer's fee, that:

"...it is now apparent that the past practice of the determination by the Chief Executive, acting together with the Chief Executives of district councils within the area of the County Council, of how much he himself should be paid in respect of his role as Returning Officer at a local election, is inappropriate and not permitted in law, at least as far as the County Council is concerned."

Lib Dem Councillor Tim Prater raised the issue at the Committee meeting of 21st June, seeking to put a proposal that, as the payment was not permitted in law according to the Council's Director of Law and Governance, that the Council should seek advice of recovering the payment. No Conservative member of the committee supported the proposal.

Tim Prater commented:

"If the payments made for running the elections to the Chief Executive had only been decided BY the Chief Executive then it's both extraordinary and wrong. I can't think of many other examples of public servants being able to set their own bonus - and its even more galling when the Chief executive at the time was one of the highest paid Council officers in the Country.

"The report makes it clear that deciding payments in the way that was done was not within the law. I'm told that it was 'common practice' in other council's too, but that's for them to judge - not us. Kent have identified this issue. We should look at whether it was right for a Chief Executive to decide to pay himself £18,000 to run an election without reference to the council.

"Protection is no in place to snsure this does not happen again. But as a Kent taxpayer I want to know why Kent are not prepared to ask for their money back when the Council's own report makes it clear that how that payment was decided was 'inappropriate' at best."