Causeway Coast and Glens: Independent says councillors should take 50% pay cut

A councillor at the cash-strapped Causeway Coast and Glens Council has said he will propose a 50% politicians’ pay cut to help balance the books.
Padraig McShane said Causeway Coast and Glens councillors should 'show leadership' by taking a pay cutPadraig McShane said Causeway Coast and Glens councillors should 'show leadership' by taking a pay cut
Padraig McShane said Causeway Coast and Glens councillors should 'show leadership' by taking a pay cut

The council has found itself in serious financial difficulties, with an accountancy body warning last week that cash reserves are now “dangerously low”.

Councillors recently approved a rates hike of 7.65% while also making sweeping cuts worth millions to services and events funding.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Independent councillor Padraig McShane, an outspoken critic of the handling of the council’s finances, said councillors should now lead from the front by voluntarily giving up half their income.

“I didn’t dig this hole for the ratepayers but I want to help dig us out of it,” he said. “I would encourage councillors to refrain from claiming mileage expenses or other extras.

“I would also say councillors should look to show leadership by reducing their income by 50% and putting that back in the pot.

“Our allowances are paid to us in the same way as at Stormont – it is statutory and it is not set by us.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“But I would encourage councillors to establish a mechanism whereby 50% of our income could be put back into the council’s finances.”

He added: “I’m making that a proposal.”

The rates hike was approved by 20 councillors from the DUP, UUP and Alliance.

The DUP’s John McAuley described the rates hike as a “low point”.

He said councillors have been subjected to abuse on social media which he described as “nothing short of hatred”.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The vile abuse directed towards members of the DUP, UUP and to a lesser extent the Alliance Party is totally unacceptable and should not be tolerated,” Mr McAuley added.

“I understand the frustration and anger in the community and, as a ratepayer myself like many other councillors, I will also be penalised and feel pain. But there is no justification for personal attacks on the level we are seeing.”

The rate was struck on Thursday night, just days before the legal deadline of February 15 and after the decision was twice postponed by councillors.

Mr McAuley suggested that if the deadline had been missed the Department for Communities at Stormont would have set a much higher rate.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Would there have been such an outcry if we hadn’t made the tough decisions and allowed the Department of Communities to set a much higher rate?” he asked.

Calls for greater scrutiny of the council’s finances have been intensifying in recent weeks.

On February 4, the council agreed to bring in the Chartered Institute of Public Finances and Accounts (CIPFA) to examine the accounts.

The CIPFA report, which has been seen by the News Letter, states that the council is spending £9.6 million – described as “a significant proportion of overall spend” – to finance its debts.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It also describes the council’s cash reserves – referred to in the document as the general fund – as “dangerously low” having reduced from £7.9 million in March 2017 to just £1.7 million by the beginning of this year.

Councillors also voted in favour of an SDLP proposal for a forensic audit of the council’s management and finances on February 4.

But a group of six councillors from the DUP, UUP and PUP employed a legal mechanism known as a call-in to try and block the motion last week.

Yesterday, Mr McAuley confirmed that he had voted against the SDLP proposal but insisted he is not opposed to an investigation into the council’s finances.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“The reason I voted against it is because there are no terms of reference, there is no proposal for who will carry this out and who would choose that person,” he told the News Letter.

“As it stands, if that were to go ahead it is an entirely open book with no limit to how much this would cost. I voted against that specific motion but I am in favour of a top to bottom investigation.

“It is quite clear that the public want an investigation and I am certainly not going to stand in the way.”