Login Register

Cann loses place on fire authority

By North Devon Journal  |  Posted: June 28, 2012

Comments (0)

A COUNTY councillor from Barnstaple has been removed from the Devon and Somerset Fire Authority.

Deputy leader of North Devon Council, Rodney Cann, was taken off the fire authority on Friday.

He believes the decision is politically motivated.

Devon County Council said that as an Independent, Mr Cann's group was no longer entitled to appoint members to the fire authority because it now had less members.

Mr Cann said: "I've been on the fire authority for the past seven years and this happens now with just ten months to go until the elections.

"I can only assume it is politically motivated.

"I don't think I am in a position to challenge this decision, I think it is politics at its nastiest."

Mr Cann thinks it is ironic that he led the opposition to a 25 per cent increase in councillor allowances on the fire authority earlier this year when a supporter of the increase, Andy Boyd, was removed from the same body for his actions.

Mr Cann said: "I've been opposing a number of county council initiatives and I think this is retaliation.

"The fire authority position was a role I really enjoyed and I was chairman of the human resource management committee.

"I am very bitter about this. We took a view in the fire authority that politics were put to one side and this decision does not make sense."

A county council spokesman said the decision was about numbers.

"Mr Cann is the leader of the Independent group which had three members. As such, they were entitled to seats on committees and outside bodies, such as the fire authority, based on their strength on the county council," he said.

"Following the recent defection of Paula Black from the Greens to Labour, the Independent group has reduced from three to two.

"As leader of the group, Mr Cann retains his county council special responsibility allowance.

"However the group is no longer entitled to appoint members to the fire authority because of its reduction in numbers."

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • buffcoat1  |  July 05 2012, 5:01AM

    so basically, Cann is getting nearly £60 a week to "look after" a County Councillor who has been on the Council longer than he has. Outrageous!

    Rate 0
    Report
  • buffcoat1  |  July 04 2012, 5:25AM

    No further comment, Frank, some of us can remember when those we elected did the job, not for the money, but for the public good.

    Rate   1
    Report
  • buffcoat1  |  July 03 2012, 4:16PM

    can you explain why he needs £2,750 to "look after" a Cllr with more experience on the County than he has? It is also rather hypocritical of Cann to cry about the loss of a (paid, but you missed that) appointment for "political reasons" when he has been quite content to use the same tactics himself.

    Rate   1
    Report
  • buffcoat1  |  July 03 2012, 4:13PM

    are you suggesting that this is not a vast amount?

    Rate   1
    Report
  • referee  |  July 03 2012, 3:14PM

    Cllr Cann allowance on the district council is £4570 cllrs allowance + £6855 for being Deputy Leader of the council. Total £11425. DCC approx £11000 + Group Leader £2750 Total £13750 Grand Total from both councils £25.175 per annum Buffcoat1 I hope that helps.

    Rate 0
    Report
  • buffcoat1  |  June 29 2012, 6:18AM

    Ok no need to stretch the vast resources of the Journal (lol) He gets £2,750 per year for "leading Roger Giles. Roger wise up! He also gets nearly £11,000 for being on the County Council plus a vast amount from the District and also a huge sum for travelling expenses. Time to look at the trough and see if we can pull a snout or two away. There should be an element of public service in being a Cllr, and there isn't.

    Rate   3
    Report
  • buffcoat1  |  June 29 2012, 5:55AM

    Exactly what is Mr Cann's "Special Allowance" for being the Leader of a Group of only two? The other Cllr in the Group has been on the Council longer than Cann and would not seem to need a lot of "looking after". Can the Journal not find out these facts? Or does it not wnat to expose its Golden Boy to ridicule?

    Rate   1
    Report

      YOUR COMMENTS AWAITING MODERATION

       
       

      MORE NEWS HEADLINES

       
       
       

      MOST POPULAR