Council Cost Cutting

[James]

The Democratic Opposition on Argyll & Bute Council continue to put the interests of constituents first. A motion has been put forward to the Council which could save around £130,000 p.a. if approved. The motion seeks to abolish top-up payments to the few select councillors, abolish un-necessary free meals and refreshments for councillors, restrict un-necessary travel by councillors and look to have the income attached to external appointments returned to the Council budget.
The response from the Establishment is clear, quoting a Council Spokesperson who said to me on this forum “.... motions put forward by Argyll First and yourself were, and will continue to be soundly defeated.”
It will probably be defeated but readers should be re-assured in these times of threatened service cuts that some councillors are prepared to look to themselves first for efficiency gains.

Councillor James Robb

[Asymetric]

An excellent idea James, I fail to see how any other Councillor could justify opposing this.

It certainly restores my faith in local politics by reading the steps being taken to right the wrongs and striving for better as opposed to accepting the status quo. Well done!

[WeeTownWeeYin]

Totally agree with Councillor Robb's proposals.

[Ship called Dignity]

It will take a lot more than cutting Councillors salaries to save £30 million so there must be some ideas out there? If not, some employees might not be so fortunate to even get the chance to take a pay cut.

(but do appreciate £130,000 saving is a great proposal)

One thread was already hi-jacked about suggestions for ways to save money - can we keep this one on topic and come up with some suggestions?

[luv2swim]

I wonder why there has been no mention of additional revenue. Are services bringing in money? Can they bring in more?

Given the government (westminster's) recent committment to blowing the urban myths of health and safety and a return to commonsense - can the council get rid of the unnecessary rule / ratio of adult to children in their swimming pools!

I don't think many parents will take their 2/3/4 children to the pool if they don't think they can manage them in the water - those with 2/3/4 children manage them in all sorts of situations so why not the pool.

If parents and children were allowed in for a swim without being 1-1 for an under 4 , or 1-2 for 4-7 years old - there would be a lot more use of the pool

which would of course lead to an increase in income and maybe save some cuts as well as having happy families