Wednesday, 7 September 2011

CWaC Council reputation management, propaganda and spin

On the 22nd August 2011 I posted the following  

CWaC CEO cost taxpayers an extra £17,000 last year 
Steve Robinson, the chief executive of Cheshire West and Chester Council, saw his total remuneration rise by £17,000 to £235,000 last year, including pension and benefits.
 His total packet took him to 14th place in the list of the country's highest paid council bosses.
My comment: The gravy train keeps on rolling!
Read the full story from the source The Telegraph
On the 24th August 2011 I submitted the following Freedom of Information request to Cheshire West and Chester Council.
I would like to know the amount you paid to the returning officer for each of the last 3 years together with an explanation as to what the payments were for.

 PS: I have searched your website for the information but can't find  it.
I am still waiting for a response to my FOI, however,

On the 24th August 2011 Cheshire West and Chester Council left the following comment on my blog post.
Council spokesman, Ian Callister, said today: “The Chief Executive of Cheshire West and Chester Council has not received any salary increase since his appointment in July 2008.
“Total reimbursements recorded in the authority’s Statement of Accounts also include repayment of travel and subsistence expenses; the agreed rise in pension payments as required by the Fund’s External Actuary and the Government’s regulation payment to all Chief Executives who acted as returning officer during the last general election.
“All the above are recorded as ‘salary’ in the Council’s Statement of Accounts, as required by financial regulations. His pay has not changed.” 
On the 24th August 2011 I updated my blog post with the follwoing statement
UPDATE 24th August 2011: Irrespective of what spin the council tries to put on it the Chief Executive cost taxpayers an extra £17,000 last year. 
and left the following response to CWaC

You mean you actually paid someone for managing this years election shambles?

In addition on the 31st August 2011 the following article appeared in the Ellesmere Port Pioneer.

Cheshire West and Chester Council chief justifies extra £13,000 payment.
COUNCIL chief executive Steve Robinson received an extra £13,000 for acting as returning officer at last year’s General Election, despite a fiasco which saw voters denied their right to vote.
Mr Robinson earned his £180,000 annual salary plus £13,000 for organising the election in Cheshire West and Chester according to the accounts. 
The council’s accounts show Mr Robinson’s benefits in kind, including his car allowance, rose from £1,000 to £2,000 last year and his employer’s pension contribution rose from £37,000 to £40,000 resulting in an overall £17,000 rise in his financial package of £235,000 compared to the previous year. 
It would appear that, in common with many other councils, Cheshire West and Chester now prefer to concentrate on reputation management, propaganda and spin.

Still no response to the question I posed in an ealier post.

Does Cheshire West and Chester Council put pressure on our local press? [(1) To promote positive stories and excuses for the council. (2) To ignore any negative stories and turn a blind eye to their pathetic excuses.] Other councils do! 


  1. He'd have to do a lot for "charidee" to offset this. In fact, he'd have to be smiling out from the pages of the internal propaganda sheet, surrounded by adoring sycophants, almost constantly to diminish the damaging effect on CWaC's reputation of these scandalous 'remuneration' levels.

    How ironic that whistleblowers have to lose their jobs, then sign agreements which often agree not to damage the reputation of the organisation - WHEN THIS DAMAGE GOES ON UNABATED

  2. "COUNCIL chief executive Steve Robinson received an extra £13,000 for acting as returning officer" - well, no, untrue.

    He would have RECEIVED approx £6000 extra after tax.

  3. Ha Ha, you could use that kind of twisted logic with his salary.


Please note all comments are moderated and will not be published unless they are relevant to the post in question and do not contain statements or links to material which could be considered defamatory.