Occupy Bristol protesters question leaders over pay rates
PROTESTERS from the Occupy Bristol camp made the short trip to the Council House to ask questions about executive pay at the city council.
The authority last week won a court order to remove the tented village on College Green and its occupants.
-
The Council House, College Green, Bristol
Last night one protester asked the city council's leader to justify why its chief executive is paid up to £107,000 per year more now than in 1998.
Craig Clarke submitted a number of questions about the increase in officer and senior councillors' salaries to Barbara Janke at the full council meeting.
Enjoy one free child admission with a full paying adult ticket.
Terms: Not to be used in conjunction with any discounted ticket or special ticket offer. No cash alternative. Excludes Bank Holidays and Bank Holiday Weekends. Ref: This is Bristol Website Voucher
Contact: 01963 400330
Valid until: Friday, January 31 2014
His questions revealed that the current chief executive Jan Ormondroyd is paid 122 per cent more than her predecessor 14 years ago.
In 1998 the equivalent post received a salary between £79,000 and £87,000 but her pay band is between £184,000 and £194,000, net of benefits or pensions contributions.
The increase amounts to an approximate £7,600 pay rise every year for more than a decade, and is way above the rate of inflation.
Mr Clarke – who was among a group who tried to fight the removal of the camp at a Bristol County Court hearing on Friday – asked Mrs Janke how this could be justified.
He also asked how she could justify the increase in payments for her own position as leader, which has gone up from £20,000 in 2002 to £40,000 now.
Mrs Janke said: "I play no role in setting my salary – an independent remuneration panel makes those recommendations and they are approved by full council.
"The salaries (of senior officers) are determined by a human resources committee. It was done in the normal way with officer advice, and I have no reason to think it was in any way unusual."
Mr Clarke used the opportunity to discuss the forthcoming eviction of the College Green site. During his questions he revealed he used to work for the city council.
He asked Mrs Janke to tell him when the eviction would take place.
Mr Clarke said: "Obviously there is concern about the College Green site and the eviction. What date and time will the bailiffs come in, so members of the public can help clear the site and avoid a very embarrassing situation?
"We do not want any images of any physical violence. I have complete faith that won't happen. The Bishop of Bristol has concern about that."
Mrs Janke said she had no knowledge of what the bailiffs were doing or when.
She said: "We would welcome the protestors moving peacefully. They can go any time they wish."
Another representative of the group, Tony Cripps, also submitted a number of questions to the council regarding ethical banking.
Although he did not attend the meeting, answers were provided.
Mr Cripps wanted to know what progress the council was making on adopting ethical banking, which is one of the successes the Occupy Bristol group has claimed from its four-month occupation of College Green.
In a written response, Mrs Janke said: "Bristol City Council adopted an ethical policy for treasury management activities at a recent cabinet meeting, with all banking, including £171 million of investments, meeting this policy.
"The council currently invests predominantly in large UK financial institutions including Lloyds TSB, RBS and Nationwide, as well as making liquid deposits in call accounts and money market funds. This is due to the global uncertainty primarily in the Eurozone.
"Please note the institutions above also have their own ethical/sustainable investment policies."
Comments
by gdw56
Friday, January 20 2012, 11:16PM
“Where is the local community that we haven't kicked these hippy junkies off College Green ourselves?”
by CurtisHewitt
Friday, January 20 2012, 8:25AM
“"1: People on site are tax payers themselves, so they are contributing to the bill that they are causing."
Contributing about 0.00000001%, yes. But there shouldn't be any bill anyway. That was what you repeatedly promised. You've recently weaseled it down to 'contributing to the cost and helping with repairs'. People don't like it when protestors break promises any more than they do when politicians do it. You've proved time and again that your promises are empty.
"2: It may be hypocrisy, but I don't see many people on the streets of Bristol trying to defend their rights or demanding the government make a change as to how their country is run. If more people tried to make a change then you can complain. As that is not the case, I'm afraid you are stuck with the guys on College Green."
There are many ways to effect change without sitting around a fire all day, blowing trumpets & watching dogs fight.
"3: Excuse the mess, but we are trying to save the world."
I'd excuse twice the mess on College Green if I thought you might have even an impact on the world, never mind saving it. I think you're getting ahead of yourself slightly there. Funny line though.”
by FOX_Joe
Friday, January 20 2012, 8:08AM
“they should have been removed on day one; they are not much different from the LibDem and Labour incompetents running (or ruining) this city.”
by Bristoldjsuk
Friday, January 20 2012, 8:07AM
“@kylew
Yes we also try and change the world, we do it by voting and lobbying, you know, through democratic MAJORITY deciding democracy. It's a bit old fashioned, been around a bit, but it's how the MAJORITY do things. Oh wait a minute, you little bunch are representing us all aren't you, funny how you seem to argue with all the people you supposedly represent?”
by Pipsbeard
Friday, January 20 2012, 7:51AM
“by KyleW
Friday, January 20 2012, 12:50AM
."Reading the comments that I have and being a member of Occupy Bristol, I must clear a few things up here.
1: People on site are tax payers themselves, so they are contributing to the bill that they are causing.
2: It may be hypocrisy, but I don't see many people on the streets of Bristol trying to defend their rights or demanding the government make a change as to how their country is run. If more people tried to make a change then you can complain. As that is not the case, I'm afraid you are stuck with the guys on College Green.
3: Excuse the mess, but we are trying to save the world."
What self-regarding rubbish that is. You have been given a very clear message to leave College Green, the very fact that there aren't many people supporting you should be a bit of clue that you have achieved NOTHING through your actions. Now just pack up and go, College Green belongs to all the people of Bristol not you and your like.”
by KNIGEL
Friday, January 20 2012, 7:26AM
“Some may be tax payers, but others will be on benefits.
"We're trying to save the world"...I thought this was about capitalism, not enviromental issues?
How is destroying College Green saving the world? Go to Brazil, India or China and campaign over there were you might make a difference!”
by KyleW
Friday, January 20 2012, 12:50AM
“Reading the comments that I have and being a member of Occupy Bristol, I must clear a few things up here.
1: People on site are tax payers themselves, so they are contributing to the bill that they are causing.
2: It may be hypocrisy, but I don't see many people on the streets of Bristol trying to defend their rights or demanding the government make a change as to how their country is run. If more people tried to make a change then you can complain. As that is not the case, I'm afraid you are stuck with the guys on College Green.
3: Excuse the mess, but we are trying to save the world.”
by Bristoldjsuk
Thursday, January 19 2012, 12:48PM
“"We don't want to cause any more fuss or cost to the taxpayer" - yet they haven't left and seem to be wanting the fight at the end to publicise their cause. Utter utter hypocricy.”
by katachua
Thursday, January 19 2012, 12:45PM
“@Bristoldjsuk
"EXACTLY. Credible questions, unfortunately asked by buffoons."
Perfect! I doff my spines to you...”
by pony1moreno
Thursday, January 19 2012, 12:23PM
“The date and time of the bailiffs has more to do with making sure their stupid "anarchist" faces get TV time.
If they want to avoid a potentially violent scene they could start moving now and forego the need for bailiffs.
And save some Council funding in hiring bailiffs and security, which could then go towards education.
Just leave. Yawn.”