Another Update from Chris Longley

From Chris Longley MBE
Dear Rothpol
I have received today the following information from RMBC

QUOTATION BEGINS

“Dear Mr Longley

Freedom of Information Act 2000 – Request for Information 547

I refer to your request for information dated 9 September 2013. Please find our response below.

1. The annual allowances paid to Councillor Shaun Wright in recognition of the additional responsibilities held by him as the RMBC Cabinet Member responsible for Children in each of the years between 2005/6 and 2010/11.

The annual Special Responsibility Allowances received by Councillor Shaun Wright for being the Cabinet Member, in addition to the basic allowance, are shown below:
2005/06 £14,859
2006/07 £15,297
2007/08 £15,297
2008/09 £15,676
2009/10 £16,108
2010/11 Mayoral Year (stood down as a Cabinet member)

2. Those annual expenses paid to Councillor Shaun Wright in recognition of expenses incurred through his discharge of the additional responsibilities held by him as the RMBC Cabinet Member responsible for Children in each of the years between 2005/6 and 2010/11. I am not interested in the annual sum totals of all expenses claimed by Councillor Wright – just those claimed and paid in connection annually with his additional duties as Cabinet Member for Children.

From 2005/06 to 2010/11 there were no expense claims submitted by Councillor Shaun Wright in connection with the additional responsibilities held by him”

QUOTATION ENDS.

This means that Ex-Councillor Wright received £77237 between 2005/6 and 2009/10 in Special Responsibility Allowances for being RMBC Cabinet Member for Children, but claimed no extra expenses at all during the discharge of those special responsibilities.

I am told the balance of my recent FOI Request proceeds apace.

Kind regards

Chris

Chris Longley MBE

2 thoughts on “Another Update from Chris Longley

  1. The point is that Mr Wright ensured that he had a vey good living wage of the back of the council tax payer. In addition he singularly failed in the responsibility to protect some of the most vulnerable children lest it interfered with his political ideology.

    He should be made to pay it back. What on earth was he doing to incur such huge expenses. In the private sector he would have been sacked and investigated for such behaviour.

    Like

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.