Backbench fury over "nil-cost" to council claim over NEC wages

All they had in front of them was a piece of paper setting out how it was important to rectify an "anomalous" situation whereby council NEC non-execs weren't paid for their efforts while Chamber of Commerce NEC non-execs were paid.
Strangely, there was no mention of the recommended £15,000 figure.
Councillors were simply advised to consult the minutes of a business management committee meeting in August 2008, where the sum of money was proposed and supported.
This, according to council director of corporate governance Mirza Ahmad, is "completely transparent" - not if you are sat in the council chamber with no access to the business management committee's on-line minutes it's not.
Even Mr Ahmad seemed somewhat confused, reportedly confirming a claim by Labour councillor Carl Rice that the amount in question was £12,000.
Well, £12,000 or £15,000? I suppose that's the sort of piffling small detail that Mrza thinks isn't terribly important in the grand scheme of things.
While some of the less cowardly backbenchers were prepared to abstain and refused to vote, enough of their colleagues duly stuck to the party line and put their hands up in order to make sure Whitby, Tilsley, Summerfield and Bore get £15,000 on top of their already generous council allowances.
Good news particularly for Sir Albert, with the award taking his total council salary up to £45,000 - a 50 per cent pay rise. Not bad for Whitby, either, edging him close to the £100,000 mark.
It wasn't just the sum of money involved that provoked anger.
The wording of the resolution before councillors stated that the payments would be at "nil-cost" to the council, since the financial arrangements would be the direct responsibility of the NEC.
This claim verges on sophistry, since the NEC is ultimately bankrolled by the council which bears any losses and takes a share of any profits. Handing over £60,000 each year to the four councillors will of course eat into the NEC's balances and cut potential profits.
This point in particular, the suggestion that the council will not be out of pocket, was picked up by Randal Brew who no doubt has his own reasons for wanting to point allegations of financial irresponsibility at the council leadership.
Brew, of course, was beaten last month when he challenged Mike Whitby for the leadership of the Conservative group and of the city council.
It should be noted that Brew's leadership campaign was based to a large extent on the notion that backbench councillors are routinely kept in the dark by Whitby and his cabinet and rarely consulted in advance on policy issues.
The NEC salaries fiasco rather makes Randal's point, you might think.