In addition to the above there is also a hidden cost.
Elected members who have full time 'day jobs' are entitled to paid leave in order to undertake council duties.
We have a number who appear to use this practice wisely and some who may appear to do otherwise.
From the FOI information we have been in a position to establish that we have one member who has taken 37 days off in one year, the maximum allowed and the majority would all appear to be on Thursdays and we have been unable to work out why Thursdays are important to the Cllr.
In addition to this elected member being provided with paid leave the employer would appear at public expense to employ a stand in during this leave of absence.
If we move on we have an elected member who has taken 21 days leave and not charged his employers or the public for this leave, (Cllr Hay) which has meant that this elected member has in our estimation lost approximately £3000 and that does not include his lost leave entitlement all for the good of the public.
Then we have a few elected members who are self employed and when they give up their time, they do not receive any compensation.
Elected members are invited to a variety of meetings, Parent Council, Community Council, Social Groups etc, etc which are all over and above of their role in attending council meetings.
Should we not be in a position to see which of those meetings each elected member actually attends, and which ones a few only attend due to a buffet being part of the proceedings.
Why are some elected members financially disadvantaged and attend as many public meetings as they can, whilst others are apparently rewarded for their lack of attendance and interaction with the public.
Are photo shoots really the only thing that counts in the ERC popularity stakes, or should we go back to the days when an elected member was rewarded for their work to support the community, and in our opinion only a few are displaying to date.