Library Consultation – What it means for Wickersley

This interesting Email simply must be shared with readers:

Dear RMBC Cllrs Ellis, Read and Hoddinott,

I have received the attached information relating to planned “changes” (aka “cuts”) to our local libraries service and I am astonished to find that our own magnificent library here at Wickersley which is currently open for 45 hours per week is proposed to be cut to 40 hours per week!.

Our library has 66990 visits per year and 3642 active borrowers (among the highest number according to RMBC’s own figures!

I note with a sense of sarcasm and profound disappointment that by comparison the library in the Aston Ward will INCREASE its hours while it boasts a minuscule amount of support from its host community – Aston Library – currently open for 44.5 hours per week -53155 visits per year – 3158 active borrowers – proposed increase hours to 49 per week.

Once again the residents and ratepayers of Wickersley are destined to be disadvantaged and to see their hours transferred to a community who show nowhere near the level of support as that of Wickersley’s residents and ratepayers.

My feeling is that once again my village is on the receiving end “of the Grald effect”.

Please will you inform me of the following at your earliest convenience –

(a) do you intend to oppose the proposed reduction in Wickersley’s Library hours?

(b) if not, why not?

(c) what specific, measurable, active measures you intend to take to oppose the proposed reduction in Wickersley Library’s hours?

(d) do you intend to organise any public meetings, and when and where, across Wickersley Ward to inform the public of your plans to oppose the proposed reduction in Wickersley Library’s hours?

(e) do you plan to oppose the proposed reduction in Wickersley Library’s hours within –
1. the Rotherham Labour Group, 2. RMBC Cabinet, 3. at full Council Meetings?

(f) if none of the 3 above, please inform me why not.

(g) do you intend to make use of the media to conduct a campaign of opposition to the proposed reduction in Wickersley Library’s hours.

I also note with considerable derision that RMBC are spuriously claiming to be responsible for the creation of the new Wickersley Library, whereas in fact it is my firm belief that the Wickersley Community Centre and Library building is owned by Wickersley Parish Council and was a project that was initiated and actioned and funded entirely by our Parish Council and that RMBC merely rent space from the Parish Council to use for library purposes!

Yours Sincerely,

Donald H. Buxton

See also: Libraries Consultation? Will this be the usual sham?

Chris Read finally comes clean! Took him long enough!

Chris Read’s RMBC profile has been updated, he has bowed to the inevitable and updated his contact details, nearly right! Still doesn’t seem to realise his post town is Mexborough, but a deal more honest than presented previously by this Labour man!

Chris Read Contact Details

2A Church Street,
Swinton, Rotherham, S64 8QA

Tel: 07585 795980 / 01709 570013

Email chris.read@rotherham.gov.uk

Biography, a bit thin? Anyone want to write one?

Read the Chris Read Files

Trambuster points to Chris Read still being economical with the truth about his address!

Our thanks go to Trambuster, for pointing out that Chris Read, who outrageously concealed from the voters of Wickersley Ward the fact that he lived elsewhere by the unlawful and deceptive shortening of his address on his nomination papers, is still at it!

Chris Reads declaration of Members Interests, download click here, states;

I live in a rented flat at 2a Church Street, S64 8QA

What it should read;

I live in a rented flat at 2a Church Street, Swinton, Mexborough, S64 8QA

Quite when he will accept that this kind of deception is simply not acceptable and must not be allowed to go unnoticed or unreported! This continual attempt to confuse and conceal important information from the voters is quite outrageous and now surely tells us that Chris Read, the new councillor for Wickersley has hit the ground running in the dishonesty stakes!

Further examination of his interests declaration reveals that he works for the Labour Party, something else he didn’t tell the voters! Why not I wonder? How much more is to be learned about this, less than honest, Labour Councillor, foisted on the people of Wickersley Ward with a less than complete picture given to those he sought to ‘serve.’

Chris Read’s entry into the world of local politics has been less than smooth in reputational terms. His apparent lack of candour about his address speaks volumes about his basic honesty. He should fit in well in the controlling Labour Group therefore, but as a local councillor this party apparatchik, who is a local organiser/campaign co-ordinator for York Labour Party, will be less than useless if he can’t be relied on to tell the truth!

This of course begs the question as to what Chris Read is doing in Rotherham? When he works in York! Lives in Swinton! and does not have personal transport nor even drive!

Can we hear a new nickname for the hapless Chris Read? Chris ‘the deceiver’ Read, any other suggestions? click here.

See Chris Reads Tweets – click here.

Were Chris Read’s nomination papers correctly completed? The definitive answer!

Or, has the Advertiser mislead it’s readers?

Read comments here.

I read Gareth Dennison’s piece in last weeks Advertiser with interest. The story was cobbled together from copied emails provided by Rob Foulds, I was party to this circulation. So I was aware that by Friday, the story as published, was substantially misleading, because the final piece of the jigsaw from the Electoral Commission was not reported, and was the clincher in determining where the truth lies in this case.

I fully expected this to be covered again in this weeks Advertiser in view of the fact that Gareth knew the previous week, by the time the Advertiser hit the streets in fact, that his story was incomplete and gave a misleading impression as to where the actual fault lay. Needless to say I experienced anger and more than a little frustration at this thoroughly unprofessional journalistic behaviour, I expected better.

Labour in Rotherham are comfortable that their dominance will not be effectively challenged by anyone and have become careless and arrogant with their actions, especially so, since the Stone Age began.

The case of Chris Read’s address is an example of the way this dominance finds expression. This stunt was not the result of ignorance, but a calculated conspiracy involving the Labour Party and Senior Officers, who should know better! By election night, both Labour Councillors and Officers, were singing from the same hymn sheet about Chris Read and had let slip the extent of the discussions on this issue. I won’t name them, but I am indebted to them for the illumination they provided!

Unfortunately the Advertiser also fell for this official line, as though it was established fact, instead of the perverse interpretation of those blinded by self delusion and prejudice seeking a specific outcome. Where have the Advertisers objectivity and critical abilities gone? They must return! The Advertiser and it’s journalists really must start asking questions, instead of swallowing the Labour line, hook line and sinker!

Martin Kimber, Rotherham MBC Chief Executive, I am told is someone not easily persuaded to change his mind even when contradictory evidence comes to light! Stubborn and obstinate are words frequently used by those who work with him. Tim Mumford, just about to retire as the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Admin, advised that their perverse interpretation of the nomination procedures was legal! It was not! They had convinced themselves that the phase ‘commonly understood’ meant they could accept a deficient nomination with the address incomplete! They couldn’t have been more incorrect on this point as the definitive evidence from the Electoral Commission shows!

The Labour Party also convinced themselves that they had come up with a ruse that was legal, even though their own Legal Handbook advised otherwise, and would conveniently conceal the fact that Chris Read was not a local candidate and improve their chances of winning this difficult to predict ward that has developed a penchant for voting Tory in recent years. Those involved, among others, were the ‘grinning goon,’ Reg Littleboy and Chris Read’s Agent, Sue Ellis from Wickersley Labour Party, who put their plan into action.

Despite crude criticism of Rob Foulds for his apparent pettiness on this issue, his critics are wrong in almost every particular. This issue is very important as it demonstrates all the current failings of the Labour Party and Senior Officers. Respect for either the Law or their professional duties is subject to compromise that breaches the codes of conduct that apply here. The ‘blue badge abuse scandal‘ and the reinterpretation of legal orders to allow a councillor to escape justice, is another example of this unacceptable attitude at work! As is the issue over the Printer installed in the ‘Members Room’ by the Labour Party and Kimber’s inadequate response, another of the seemingly partisan approaches taken by  Martin Kimber and Tim Mumford that these recent examples shine a light on.

Sarah Hopson, from the Electoral Commission has confirmed Rob’s contention that a candidate has to complete the form and “the candidate’s home address must be completed in full and should not contain any abbreviations.” and that his address must be “commonly understood,” Chris Reed gave his address as Church Street, Rotherham which was wholly misleading and gave no common indication that he actually lives in Swinton. By the way, “commonly understood” means, how the locals would address themselves, it does not provide a cover for a deceptive address as in this instance!

It is clear that this deliberate deception was not legal or acceptable, this should serve as a lesson to the Labour Party locally, their arrogance will get them into trouble and nowadays their activities are being watched more closely than ever before!

Rob Foulds emerges from this sorry little tale of Labour chicanery, vindicated and with his dignity intact. Labour however have again demonstrated that there is no trick, they will not stoop to, to keep control of what happens in Rotherham! The Advertiser does not come out of this well either, they really must adopt a questioning attitude and not take the ‘official line’ as correct when they are in possession of the full facts! The police response, initially encouraging, was most disappointing. Even so, they acknowledged that deficiencies existed and undertook to remedy this in future elections.

Evidence:

From: Sarah Hopson <SHopson@electoralcommission.org.uk>
Date: 27 May 2011 14:47
Subject: RE: Local Elections 2011, Rotherham
To: “rob.foulds@googlemail.com” <rob.foulds@googlemail.com>

Dear Mr Foulds

Thank you for contacting the Electoral Commission about your experience during the May 2011 local elections in Rotherham. The Electoral Commission has no power to intervene in, or investigate allegations of electoral offences however; your e-mail has been passed to me to inform you of our guidance on the matters you have raised.

The first point that you raise is outlining the particulars of the address that the other candidate put on their nomination form.

The advice contained within our Candidates and Agents guidance on this matter is that the candidate’s home address must be completed in full and should not contain any abbreviations. We cannot comment on any individual cases as this would be a matter for the courts to decide. Any allegations of false statements on nomination forms must be reported to the police. However, it should be noted that where a home address is not absolutely correct, the nomination would not be open to successful challenge as long as the address can be commonly understood. This is covered in section 50 of the Representation of the People Act 1983.

Your second point is about the failure to act by the Electoral staff. Returning Officers and their staff have to accept the information written on a nomination form on face value. They have no power to perform investigations into the details provided other than checking the electoral registration details of subscribers and that any description provided complies with the requirements of the Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006. They are tasked with checking that every item required has been completed and copying the details contained on the nomination form verbatim from the form onto the official documentation e.g. official notices and ballot papers.

Once the Returning Officer has made a decision that a nomination paper is valid, it cannot be challenged during the election, it can only be challenged after by way of an election petition. Just to note, the deadline for election petitions for 5 May elections has now passed.

I hope that this information is useful to you, if I can provide you with any further guidance on electoral matters please do contact me using the details given below.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Hopson

Regional Liaison Officer The Electoral Commission

_____________________________________________________________

From: <Gary.Blinkhorn@southyorks.pnn.police.uk>
Date: 24 May 2011 16:42
Subject: Re: Local Elections Rotherham 2011
To: Rob Foulds <rob@rofos.net>
Cc: Graham.Wragg@southyorks.pnn.police.uk, Caroline.Newman@southyorks.pnn.police.uk

Dear Mr Foulds

I have now examined your complaint and researched the relevant legislation
and Electoral Commission guidance notes and respond as follows:

As you indicate the address “2A Church Street, Rotherham, S64 8QA” would
perhaps be enhanced by the addition of ” Swinton”.
A person standing in that Ward does not have to reside in that Ward to
be a candidate providing he meets one of the four qualifications. Most
residents in Wickersley will know S64 isn’t their postcode.
Only the Labour Party Handbook gives actual specific guidance to include
the name of the village and in fact the more authoritative Electoral
Administration Act example you quote fails to give the village/area
within Basingstoke.
As you concede, it can be argued that his description does adequately
allow his address to be identified.
You received on the 6th April the “statement of persons nominated” which
included Mr Read’s name and address and on the 8th April the “Notice of
Poll” again including his name and address in the same form. However you
did not raise the matter until the evening of Polling Day when someone
else alerted you. I understand you are the Clerk to Bramley Parish
Council and perhaps better acquainted with these matters than most
candidates would be.
No changes could have been made to the nomination paper or new papers
submitted after the deadline and there is no legal requirement for
election staff to provide an informal inspection service for nomination
papers.

I have discussed the matter with my line manager and we are both agreed
that as no offence appears to have been committed by Mr Read no further
Police action will be taken The matter will be recorded with the Police
National Information Coordinating Centre, which reports to ACPO and The
Electoral Commission and I will ensure when we provide briefings to
candidates in future I will stress this area of the legislation. I did
attend the Rotherham briefing on the 6th April 2011, but I do not recall
this specific area being the subject of any questions.

Regards
Gary Blinkhorn
Manager
Research and Development Unit
Economic Crime Unit

_____________________________________________________________

Wickersley Notice of Poll Read here: Does this represent a Full Postal Address? I don’t think so!!!

_____________________________________________________________

Extract from the Labour Party’s ‘Keep it Legal,’ 2011 Election Manual:

“The home address of the candidate must be the official home address – not a business address or a temporary address. The place of residence must be fully stated, including the name of the town or village.”

_____________________________________________________________

Original Complaint: To read click here.

______________________________________________________________

Previously published:

Richard S Russell vs Rob Foulds – Fact Check

More news – Chris Read and Wickersley Labour – were the voters hoodwinked?

Wickersley Labour Lies! Voters deceived?

Richard S Russell vs Rob Foulds – Fact Check

Rob Foulds

In the wake of the local elections this year and the dirtiest campaign, from parts of the Labour Party, ever in Rotherham! Much has been made of the fact that Rob Foulds did not live in Rother Vale Ward where he stood as a Rotherham Independent candidate last year. Labour has taken every opportunity to draw attention to this fact believing that this would be damaging to Rob Foulds’s reputation.

Rob Foulds stood in the Rother Vale Ward, which he can see from his front window, because Richard Russell was a ‘bussed in’ Labour candidate from far away West Melton, just next door to Brampton Bierlow, part of the Dearne Valley and not the most ‘local’!

Richard Russell Deselected 'Dud'

Richard Russell was also a decidedly poor candidate, rejected by his home ward of Hoober, where  Labour Party members deselected him after 28 years as their councillor because they already had quite enough of this insufferably arrogant, ignorant and greedy**(See note below) Councillor, whose abilities appear to be in inverse proportion to his ego! A right numpty, in fact!

Interestingly and very illuminating, Richard Russell always gives as his address Wath-upon-Dearne. Say that to the neighbours, and they will tell you they live in West Melton or even Brampton Bierlow! What planet is he on? His wife Pat is also a councillor, representing the far away Silverwood ward. There seems to be a pattern emerging don’t you think?

The fact that Labour members from the Rother Vale ward selected this dud, previously rejected candidate, to represent them is evidence that Labour is completely contemptuous of the voters! And the stupidity of Labour members in Rother Vale was also made abundantly clear by their outrageous choice.

Another factor was also important for Rotherham Independents, the clamour from residents of the ward for a more able and local candidate. The resentment in the ward, even among fiercely loyal Labour voters was clear. This was eventually persuasive and crucial in deciding to contest the Rother Vale ward last year, I understand. This resulted in Rob Foulds reducing the Labour majority and gaining 1,700 votes, quite a surprise in this most tribal of Labour seats and with the backdrop of a simultaneous General Election, very surprising indeed!

Chris Read - Wickersley's Local Candidate?

When it became known that Wickersley Labour Party had selected a candidate with no local connexions, from far away Swinton, Rob decided to take a stand on this issue and made it an important plank of his campaign! Rob Foulds lives in the Wickersley ward and was fully entitled to be aggrieved that Labour was not fielding a local candidate but one from the only point where Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster meet, the Dearne Valley! To add insult to injury, Chris Read cannot drive, which will make serving the residents, difficult if not impossible, in the long term! Wait until winter comes!

Labour made the decision to do everything to conceal this fact from the Wickersley voters, the issues involved will be explored in detail in a later posting. The result reflected this but Rob’s vote put him in second place pushing the Tories into third place! Quite a result!

Notes: Greedy** Richard Russell made into third position in the greed list for last year receiving a total of £29,127.72 and Pat, his wife and fellow councillor, received a total of £13,640.64. Between them they got £42,768.36! Plus any benefits accrued by sitting on outside bodies, a not inconsiderable sum to add to their pensions! No wonder Richard Russell and Pat Russell became ‘carpet baggers’ to get on the Council, in Pats case, or to stay on after being deselected by Hoober ward members who know him best!

More news – Chris Read and Wickersley Labour – were the voters hoodwinked?

Extract from the Labour Party’s ‘Keep it Legal,’ 2011 Election Manual:

“The home address of the candidate must be the official home address – not a business address or a temporary address. The place of residence must be fully stated, including the name of the town or village.”

Pretty conclusive to me, don’t forget this is the minimum required to comply with elections legislation.

Chris Read’s address was therefore deficient and should have been corrected by the Returning Officer who failed to do so even though he could and should have done so, using his legal powers, referred to by the Electoral Commission’s:

Managing a local government election in England: guidance for Returning Officers

I quote from it:

“Candidate’s home address:

4.37 The candidate’s full home address must be included. If, however, any detail is wrong or omitted, the nomination is not automatically invalid if the description of the place is such as to be commonly understood. Also, the Returning Officer has a power to correct minor errors in nomination papers, the use of which is considered below under ‘Correction of minor errors’.”

Who is this, perhaps incompetent, individual who doesn’t seem to understand his professional obligations, legal duties or even the extent of his powers?

Why, it’s our old friend, Martin Kimber, the Chief Executive of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council and Returning Officer, under a professional obligation to be impartial but appears to have been particularly partisan in this instance.

Martin Kimber’s spokesperson’s explanation in this week’s Advertiser, is at least disingenuous, based as it is on a false interpretation of the legal requirements or incomplete information! Either way, Kimber is going to have some awkward questions to answer!

Wickersley Labour Lies! Voters deceived?

Chris Read

When Labour selected their candidate for the Wickersley Ward of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council they knew straight away that they had a problem, they had selected, not a local Wickersley resident, but a resident of Swinton, Mexborough and if that were not difficulty enough he doesn’t even own a car nor drive!

Why was this a problem for Labour? Swinton lies a stones throw from both Barnsley and Doncaster! Not exactly local then! The issue of lack of personal transport will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for him to represent Wickersley as well as he should.

This is a rapidly increasing problem for Labour in Rotherham, as they have many ‘bussed in’ councillors liberally sprinkled around Rotherham. Wouldn’t it be useful if they could simply keep this information from voters in the future?

That is exactly what Rotherham Labour Party decided to do, conceal the truth from the voters of Wickersley Ward, quite outrageous!

I got an inkling of the issues ahead, when upon my arrival at the count at Magna at 10 pm, Councillor Alan Atkin from Wath Ward, without being in fact asked, couldn’t restrain himself from giving me an explanation, that bore much more than a striking resemblance to the official answer, I was given later by Maggs Evers, the Council’s Elections Officer?

Others I spoke to at the count, freely acknowledged that much discussion had taken place about this within Labour circles, and involving I understand, both the Chief Executive and Assistant Chief Executive, Martin Kimber and Tim Mumford respectively. Martin Kimber, it should not be overlooked, was acting as Returning Officer for the elections held on May 5th. If Martin Kimber or Tim Mumford were involved, the conflict of interest issues might well prove problematic.

How did they do it? The issue of how to conceal the inconvenient fact of his domicile on election literature was easily achieved, nothing in the text of the leaflets from Labour mentioned that Chris Read lived elsewhere than within the Ward. The imprint also is not required to have the address of the candidate, only their name, provided that the promoter and publisher were properly identified. A deception indeed! But at least perfectly legal.

How about the Ballot Paper? Surely his full address should be stated there? Apparently not, according to the opinion of RMBC! This is of course where most of the discussion and debate was focussed, how to procure a ballot paper that was essentially deceptive by confusing the issue of where he lives and effectively conceal the facts from Wickersley voters by manipulation.

What goes on the ballot paper is the address information given on the nomination paper. That’s when a bright idea came to them, if the candidate was nominated using the following address 2A Church Street, Rotherham, S64 8QA, then that is what would appear on the Notice of Poll, displayed at Polling Stations and on the ballot paper. Read Wickersley Notice of Poll here Wickersley.

I am advised that the correct full postal address for Chris Read is in fact; 2A Church Street, Swinton, Mexborough, S64 8QA, quite a difference!

A result for Labour you might think? As this stunt will, no doubt. be pulled across the Borough next year by Labour Candidates wishing to conceal their often distant domicile fearing their electorates won’t like it.

Rob Foulds

Will it work? Unfortunately for Labour, one of the other candidates Rob Foulds, the Rotherham Independent candidate, he is not happy about this and will not rest until every avenue of this disgraceful and deceptive episode is explored and any wrongdoing exposed! They may have scored a spectacular ‘own goal’ on this one as Rob Foulds is a doughty fighter for what is right, if ever there was one!

Another potential problem for Tim Mumford to ponder upon is that this ruse may well turn out not to have been such a good idea once all facts are known. The ballot paper may well be ‘legal’ but the legality of the original nomination is quite a different matter.

As a Full Postal Address is required by law for the nomination to be valid, this does not look to be a valid nomination to me, because the address is deficient and believe it should not have in fact been accepted!

A final point. This trick goes against the advice contained in Labour’s own ‘Keep it Legal‘ election manual! The Labour Party devotes considerable attention to issues such as this and I am confident that if this was such a good idea Labour would have advised so.

Mirror, Mirror On The Wall, Who Is The Greediest Of Them All?…..

Let the figures speak for themselves!

Greed by Individual Councillor 2009-10
Rank Name 2009-10 Ward Up Next Year
1 Roger Stone £45,407.72 Silverwood Yes
2 Terry Sharman £34,062.38 Wingfield Yes
3 Richard Russell £29,127.27 Hoober No
4 Gerald Smith £28,730.15 Holderness No
5 Mahroof Hussain £28,670.90 Boston Castle No
6 Glyn Whelbourn £28,662.08 Rawmarsh No
7 Shaun Wright £28,624.15 Rawmarsh No
8 Jahangir Akhtar £28,622.08 Rotherham West No
9 Ken Wyatt £28,597.44 Swinton No
10 Iain StJohn £26,707.84 Anston & Woodsetts Yes
11 John Doyle £26,608.20 Swinton Yes
12 Dave Pickering £23,292.72 Valley No
13 Ann Russell £23,268.91 Silverwood No
14 Rose McNeely £23,186.91 Boston Castle No
15 Jane Austen £23,183.41 Holderness Yes
Georgina Boyes £23,183.41 Rother Vale No
17 Alex Sangster £23,182.96 Wath Yes
John Gilding £23,182.96 Sitwell Yes
19 Hilda Jack £23,180.04 Holderness No
Peter Wooton £23,180.04 Boston Castle Yes
21 Barry Dodson £17,821.29 Rotherham East Yes
22 John Swift £17,746.45 Rother Vale Yes
23 Lindsay Johnston £17,734.79 Wingfield No
Paul Lakin £17,734.79 Valley Yes
Jennifer Whysall £17,734.79 Wales No
26 Alan Atkin £17,064.05 Wath No
JRA Turner £17,064.05 Hellaby No
28 Maurice Kirk £14,366.66 Rotherham East No
Amy Rushforth £14,366.66 Maltby No
30 Frank Hodgkiss £14,191.06 Hoober No
31 Josephine Burton £13,974.74 Anston & Woodsetts No
32 Reg Littleboy £13,882.84 Brinsworth & Catcliffe Yes
33 Shaukat Ali £13,735.60 Rotherham East No
34 Pat Russell £13,640.64 Silverwood No
35 Ian Barron £13,596.78 Keppel No
36 Sheila Walker £13,588.84 Keppel No
37 Barry Kaye £13,570.24 Keppel Yes
38 Jacqueline Falvey £13,558.84 Dinnington No
Alan Gosling £13,558.84 Wath No
Jane Hamilton £13,558.84 Hoober Yes
Jane Havenhand £13,558.84 Dinnington Yes
42 Fred Wright £13,558.40 Brinsworth & Catcliffe No
43 Simon Currie £13,404.13 Valley No
Keith Goulty £13,404.13 Wingfield No
45 Simon Tweed £13,400.75 Dinnington No
46 Chris McMahon £12,952.16 Wickersley No
47 Neil License £12,772.58 Swinton No
48 Kath Sims £12,457.87 Rotherham West No
49 T Fenoughty £12,412.54 Wales No
50 Michael Clarke £12,306.98 Sitwell Dec
Brian Cutts £12,306.98 Hellaby Yes
Lynda Donaldson £12,306.98 Hellaby No
John Foden £12,306.98 Rotherham West Yes
Neil Hamilton £12,306.98 Rawmarsh Yes
Tony Mannion £12,306.98 Sitwell No
G Nightingale £12,306.98 Rother Vale No
G Sharp £12,306.98 Wales Yes
Ben Slade £12,306.98 Maltby Yes
Peter Thirlwall £12,306.98 Wickersley Yes
60 Will Blair £12,303.59 Maltby No
John Gamble £12,303.59 Brinsworth & Catcliffe No
Darren Hughes £12,303.59 Anston & Woodsetts No
Martyn Parker £12,303.59 Boston Castle No

Councillor Greed by Ward 2009-2010.
Ward totals in descending order.
Ward Total Rank
Silverwood £82,317.27 1
Holderness £75,093.60 2
Boston Castle £75,037.85 3
Rawmarsh £69,593.21 4
Swinton £67,978.22 5
Wingfield £65,201.13 6
Hoober £56,877.17 7
Valley £54,431.64 8
Wath £53,804.30 9
Rotherham West £53,386.93 10
Rother Vale £53,236.84 11
Anston & Woodsetts £52,986.17 12
Sitwell £47,796.88 13
Rotherham East £45,923.55 14
Wales £42,454.31 15
Hellaby £41,681.01 16
Keppel £40,755.86 17
Dinnington £40,518.43 18
Brinsworth & Catcliffe £39,744.83 19
Maltby £38,977.23 20
Wickersley £37,562.73 21

Extracted from: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/download/3675/members_allowances_and_expenses_2009-10