Castleton Councillor Collects Stipend Top-up

Council Leader says he has 'confidence' in Aasim Rashid

CASTLETON Councillor, Aasim Rashid, found himself under attack in the Rochdale Council Chamber on Wednesday night from the Lib-Dem leader, Andy Kelly, for snatching the stipend top-up he and others in the Labour and Tory parties voted through for themselves in December 2016.

At that time the Manchester Evening News headlined a report on this decision:  'Councillors booed as they vote to accept a 34% pay rise'.

Some councillors who voted for the pay hike said at the time that they wouldn't take the money.  One such was Castleton Councillor Aasim Rashid.  Yet, on the 19th, March 2018, the Rochdale Online Blog revealed:  'Labour councillor Aasim Rashid, from Castleton, who promised, “I’m not taking even a single penny increase in my allowance”, took the increase.'.

That's why at tonight's full Council meeting a flustered Labour leader, councillor Allen Brett had to declare: 'Councillor Rashid has my total confidence, he has my backing'

Councillor Brett also said 'Councillor Rashid didn't know that he had taken the extra allowance.'

Coumcillor Rashid wasn't in the Council Chamber last Wednesday to hear this spat, so he couldn't defend himself.  Perhaps he, like many other labour councillors tonight were out on the stomp to save their own seats at the coming local elections on the 3rd, May.*

But did Councillor Rashid really overlook his extra stipend as Councillor Brett suggests?  After all innumeracy isn't something he declares in his election literature.  Quite the contrary in his declaration he boasts:  'As a business owner I am familiar with finance and hence I have also served you on the Council by being responsible for council finances during what has been an exceptionally difficult time...'

So clearly Councillor Rashid, an economics graduate, has a better basic background in accountancy than most of us, and one would have thought that with his solid familiarity with finance that he would easily be able to get his head round a simple bank balance showing that his councillor's allowances had soared by some 30% or so.

When this week I asked him to explain why he took the money, Councillor Rashid fail to respond.

Councillor Kelly said that he well remembered a local Labour MP, who had had habit of claiming too much in his expenses claims.   Perhaps it is just a necessary family trait in the Rochdale Labour Party, because black sheep like Labour Councillor Chris Furlong, who tonight attended his last Council meeting found himself deselected by the party for failing to support the super stipend boost in 2016.


* About 30 Labour councillors failed to attend last Wednesday's full Council meeting.

Councillors who Snuggled-up to a Super Stipend

Editor Northern Voices:  ON Monday the 19 March 2018 the 

Rochdale Online website reported that in Rochdale the 

Councillor's allowances will 'top one million' pounds.

Helpfully, Carl Faulkner, the Independent candidate for

Spotland and Falinge, exposed how the Rochdale councillors

had shared out their generous stipend pay among themselves.

 Among the opposition, only the Lib Dem councillors 
Andy Kelly and Irene Davidson voted against the rises 
and refused the increase, meanwhile on the Labour 
side councillors Andy Bell, Malcolm Borriss, 
Chris Furlong and Billy Sheerin also refused the increase.
Of the 60 Rochdale councillors, according to Rochdale
Online, all the others including the Tories took the
extra State stipend either in part or in full.

Below Carl Faulkner gives his views on the way the Rochdale 
municipal establishment handled the issue of their own stipend:

NO MANDATE TO UP COUNCILLOR'S ALLOWANCES !
by Carl Faulkner

NOT a single councillor was press-ganged into becoming a councillor.  It is an entirely voluntary position.  Not a single councillor has ever stated that if elected, they will be wanting increased allowances.  

If the allowances were not sufficient, then they should have not stood or alternatively, stepped down – there would not have been any shortage of people willing to take their place.

The way in which the rise in allowances was brought about was indicative of the self-serving way in which councillors and senior council officers often act.  The public were given one week’s notice; the rise itself was timed to come into effect in a year that there were no elections.  

It was a cynical, deliberate act to exclude public opinion from the process.  But it was entirely consistent with the arrogant and underhanded way in which the public (and press) are deliberately excluded from major decisions of public concern.

But should we be surprised?   It is councillors who decide on the appointment of the Chief Executive.  It is the Chief Executive, at a time of his choosing,  who hand picks the panel who then recommended the extortionate rises.  The favour returned.

******

Councillor Furlong may be praying for rain!

YESTERDAY, after appearing before an independent panel, the Middleton Labour Councillor Chris Furlong  confirmed that he has not been reselected to stand in the May 2018 local election.

 

Councillor Furlong has said:  'I will not be standing anywhere next year.  I will continue as Labour councillor until May 2018 for the people of North Middleton.  I will continue to work hard and stand up for the people of North Middleton as best as I can, which I have done since 2014.'

The councillor continued to say:
'There has been speculation regards the reason of why I did not appeal the decision not to allow me on the Labour selection panel for next year’s local election.  I did originally appeal, and it was an appeal I thought that I would be successful with.  However, I decided to withdraw that appeal.'

All of the above was reported on Rochdale online, but what was not reported was Councillor Furlong's final paragraph:

'I have been informed that there may be information that may be made public during the forthcoming Cambridge House/Knowl View Inquiry about an individual.  I would like to point out that the individual in question is not me or anyone actually connected with me and this information was not even provided by me, however, this information has helped me come to the decision to withdraw my appeal.  I cannot say any more until after the inquiry when I will expand further on why this information helped me decide not to appeal and I will not be making any further comment until then.'

Given the continuing dire speculation surrounding the position of the Labour leader of Rochdale Council, Richard Farnell, with regard to what may come out of the forthcoming enquiry into Knowl View school, it may be that Councillor Furlong is being a trifle tactical here, and even, dare one say it, praying for rain?

******

Problems of Selection in Rochdale Labour Party?

Editorial remarks:

THE statement of appeal below was sent to N.V. a few days 
ago by Stefan Cholewka, Secretary GMATUC and Secretary 
of  Rochdale TUC.  Both Mr. Cholewka, and Middleton Councillor Chris Furlong, both who haven't been selected for the 2018 Rochdale MBC elections, were critical of the municipal gravy train established under the leadership of the current Labour Party council boss Richard Farnell earlier this year.  

We could not possible comment as to whether this has anything to do with them failing  to get selected to stand in next year's local elections.  Hence, we have decided to produce Stefan's introduction and appeal statement below without comment.

******

ALONG with Cllr. Chris Furlong from Heywood & Middleton CLP I have been rejected from the panel to stand in the LA elections in 2018.  I have formally appealed the decision to Andy Smith at NW Labour. An appeal panel will be held on Monday 2nd October.

I am posting my Appeal Statement see below
If comrades from Rochdale CLP support my statement / my candidature to be included on the panel please will you agree to sign the statement in order to support my appeal process.

You can email your support to: stefan.cholewka@btinternet.com. 

 Please include which  TUC / CLP ward you are in if applicable.

APPEAL STATEMENT

Stefan Cholewka: written submission for the Appeal that will take place on Monday 2nd October 2017 at 7.45pm
Venue will be: 45 York Street, Heywood, and Lancashire, OL10 4NN

On Sunday 17th September at 12.00 noon at Liz McInnes MP’s office at 45 York Street, Heywood, Lancashire, OL10 4NN I was told to go upstairs and await my panel interview as they were running late.  Three candidates were already in the upper office when I entered.  A further candidate arrived after me.

All four candidates preceded me in very quick succession.  I was the last candidate to be interviewed even though the fourth candidate turned up after I had arrived.  It seemed that I had been deliberately set up to be interviewed last.

Three Labour party members from Tameside council, one being the CLP secretary, interviewed me.  From the get-go I was subjected to hostile questioning that went on for nearly 50 mins.  This was in sharp contrast to the very short time it took to interview all the other candidates.

For every question I answered there were three to four hostile supplementary questions. It seems that being the secretary of GMATUC and local Rochdale TUC secretary can lead to a conflict of interest with LP policy.  I was asked specifically the question in different forms: What if TUC policy and Labour Party policy conflict?

These are extremely disquieting questions to be asked when it is Labour Party policy that all candidates and sitting Labour councillors have to be a member of a registered trade union to be eligible for office.

It seems that being a Co-operative Party member, more specifically: NW Regional Co-operative Party secretary and Rochdale Co-operative Party secretary can also lead to a conflict of interest with Labour Party policy.  I was asked specifically in different forms: What would I do if Co-operative Party policy conflicts with Labour Group policy?

I had already told the interview panel that I had already been included on the Greater Manchester Co-operative Party panel of candidates to be a Labour-Co-operative candidate for 2018.  I had also explained and that I had previously stood in Rochdale in the Spotland & Falinge ward, Balderstone ward and in West Littlleborough in 2016 as a Labour-Co-operative candidate in local government elections.

If there was not a conflict of interest then, why should there be a conflict of interest now? If I had been selected to stand on the panel at least seven times previously why was there no conflict of interest in all these instances?  I would like to know why questions concerning any conflict of interests - because I was a trade unionist and a co-operator - had not been raised in all previous occasions I had been interviewed accept this time?

Finally, being community activists can mean a conflict of interest with Labour Party policy as local residents may have different priorities from the Labour Group.  It seems that being Director Rochdale Community Energy CIC was an issue and that would conflict with Labour Group Policy.  This despite the fact that two serving Rochdale Labour Party councillors are also fellow directors.  Despite that fact that for two years a council environmental officer attended monthly meetings and reported back to the Council to develop joint collaborative projects.

I had already told the interview panel that I had already been included on the Greater Manchester Co-operative Party panel of candidates to be a Labour-Co-operative candidate for 2018.  I had also explained and that I had previously stood in Rochdale in the Spotland & Falinge ward, Balderstone ward and in West Littlleborough in 2016 as a Labour-Co-operative candidate in local government elections.

If there was not a conflict of interest then, why should there be a conflict of interest now? If I had been selected to stand on the panel at least seven times previously why was there no conflict of interest in all these instances?   I would like to know why questions concerning any conflict of interests - because I was a trade unionist and a co-operator - had not been raised in all previous occasions I had been interviewed accept this time?

Finally, being community activists can mean a conflict of interest with Labour Party policy as local residents may have different priorities from the Labour Group.  It seems that being Director Rochdale Community Energy CIC was an issue and that would conflict with Labour Group Policy.  This despite the fact that two serving Rochdale Labour Party councillors are also fellow directors.  Despite that fact that for two years a council environmental officer attended monthly meetings and reported back to the Council to develop joint collaborative projects.

So being trade unionists, a co-operator and a community activist far from making me an ideal candidate in the eyes of the panel interviewers was somehow perceived as negative attributes that cast suspicion upon myself.

It also seems that standing up to fascists marching in Rochdale is a bad thing as well.  The Tameside CLP secretary told me, immediately I had answered the very first question, that Rochdale MBC councillor's where banned from attending the two anti-fascist counter demos on two consecutive weekends in Rochdale.  So, I was asked why I had broken Labour Group policy, despite not being a councillor subject to the whip or even selected onto the panel at that stage.

They also did not like my campaigning on-line in support of the Palestinian people; specifically they did not like an on-line article I posted on the proposed changes to LP policy on Palestine coming before LP Conference.  I was told that I was attacking Labour Party policy.

Given that the article was discussing proposed changes to existing Labour Party policy and supporting the current policies I was rather puzzled as to why I should be accused of attacking Labour Party policy.

Clearly, these lines of hostile questioning had very little to do with answering the 20 prepared questions that were written down for the panel to ask me.

At the end of the interview process, or should I say inquisition, I asked the panel if they thought that I had actually broken Labour Party policy, and if so which ones, given that they seemed to be very strongly suggesting that I had already done so.  The answer I received was “NO”.

Stefan Cholewka
Secretary GMATUC - Secretary Rochdale TUC
Secretary NW Region Co-operative Party Secretary Rochdale Co-operative Party
Director Rochdale Community Energy CIC