Rotherham councillor numbers cut — by four

BOSSES have finally agreed that Rotherham’s 63 borough councillors should be cut in number but only by four.

There have been regular calls from opposition members for the amount to be reduced by a third – falling from three to two per ward.

The Local Government Boundary Commission has started a review into Rotherham’s boundaries following the intervention after the CSE scandal.

RMBC was asked to put forward a suggestion for the number of councillors in future and has decided on a figure of 59.

Read on…

Gallery | This entry was posted in Abuse of power and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Rotherham councillor numbers cut — by four

  1. Time for a change says:

    What a joke, 8 million overspent and they (public sector workers ) funded by us the tax payers will cut the amount of councillers by four,why does rotherham need some many councillers and what do they really do for us the tax payer ?,

  2. Colin Tawn says:

    It will be very interesting to see if the Labour dominated council is willing to reduce the number of Labour councillors rather than decide Independent and/or Ukip councillors should lose their seats.
    This is a golden opportunity for RMBC to show us how truly ‘democratic’ the Labour party is.
    Labour has a majority of ‘only’ 57, perhaps that is not enough?

  3. Timawells says:

    One councillor working full time for each ward, would be better than three part time ones.

  4. Anonymous 4 says:

    Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas 🙂

  5. Colin Tawn says:

    “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas”
    Quite true. They vote Labour.

  6. S Thornton says:

    I just happened to read the report that recommended that they lose four Councillors. The biggest joke of all was that they “ESTIMATED” , because they have no figures/records, that RMBC Councillors work on average 25 HRs a week. So in my book and with my calculator (based on £11,500 per year “expenses) I make it that RMBC Councillors are paid around £239 58 PER WEEK FOR 25 HOURS. ( £9.58 per hour) We all know that they dont do that much work (3 days x 8 hour a week) .
    Time we had a true account of what hours they actually work.

    • reg reader says:

      S Thornton,
      Do you have a link to the report – I can’t find it or anything about it anywhere.

        • reg reader says:

          Thanks Colin, but it was RMBC’s own reports that I was looking for. Found some of them now!

          This is what a find significant in it all (and dated 13 July 2016):
          “Following the recent move to all-out elections for the Council, the Local
          Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) has determined
          that it will undertake a review of Rotherham’s local government ward
          boundaries. With the change from elections by thirds, the LGBCE was of the
          opinion that there no longer needed to be a presumption that all wards would
          have three members.”

          If the Council is recommending that there is a loss of 5 councillors —
          I’m finding it hard to think how one could have some wards on two members and some on three. Maybe some wards have significantly greater populations than others… ???

  7. Anonymous says:

    How do they arrive at 59? Surely the total needs to be divisible by three. With three members per ward that would be 20 wards x 3 = 60 or 19 wards by 3 = 57.

  8. Colin Tawn says:

    ‘How do they arrive at 59?’
    Not all wards have 3 councillors nor IMV is there any need for this discrepancy.
    Two councillors per ward is enough.

  9. Pingback: The Week That Was – Last Weeks Top Ten 1st October | Rotherham Politics

Leave your comment

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

You are commenting using your 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