The then Chief Executive of Kent County Council, Peter Gilory, authorised payments to himself “not permitted in law” of £18,350 for running the 2009 county council elections.
The minutes and agenda for a county council’s Electoral and Boundary Review Committee are not normally top of the media’s “must read” list, but the paperwork for this Kent County Council meeting of 21st June contains some damaging revelations about the council’s former Chief Executive Peter Gilroy who, it is revealed, authorised illegal payments to himself from public funds for the 2009 Kent County Council elections.
The chief executives of other councils in the area, who could have blocked the payments, failed to do so and as a result Peter Gilroy, who had previously attracted criticism for his £220,000 per annum salary, received £18,350.
The revelations come in the note to the committee jointly written by the council’s Director of Law and Governance, Geoff Wild, and the Head of Registration and Coroners, Giles Adey. They write,
The past practice of the determination by the Chief Executive, acting together with the Chief Executives of district councils within the area of the County Council, of how much he himself should be paid in respect of his role as Returning Officer at a local election, is inappropriate and not permitted in law, at least as far as the County Council is concerned.
At the 21st June meeting, Liberal Democrat Tim Prater proposed an investigation into the options for any recovery of the illegal payment. However, the other members of the committee (all Conservative) refused to even debate the proposal let alone authorise such an investigation.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A radical agenda but can Burnham deliver?
Reg Calvert and his boarding school of rock
A shocking abuse of the legal system where the rich try to bully the weak and poor into submission
Slamdac
Alex Macfie
Peter Davies
Chloe
2 Comments
Could someone explain why council chief executives are paid a bonus for carrying out returning officer duties when this is part of their duties anyway.
Good question, Muse. On the date of appointment, a Chief Executive could put nearly all the dates of the elections over which he/she will preside in the diary.
Many people who have jobs in elections, working in polling stations or at the count do also work for a council, but are paid and employed separately. (Counters used to be paid in cash before they left the count! (Maybe still are.))
I suspect this was introduced as an anti-corruption measure introduced to keep employment in an election entirely separate from other employment, where one might be beholden to a party in the election.
I suppose the question is, who does the Chief Executive answer too when presiding at an election? Normally, a higher manager or a supervisory committee should vet expenses, but in his day job that would be councillors, possibly seeking re-election! In an election he/she works for the electorate as a whole in his/her area. Perhaps, he/she should be overseen by the toothless and not always competent Electoral Commission?