Robson returns salary

Although he was unsuccessful in both his mayoral bid and re-election campaign for council, John Robson isn’t bitter.

When he was elected in 2013 he promised to pay back a percentage of his salary if voters rejected him in 2016.

John Robson is making good on his 2013 promise to return a portion of his councillor salary if he was not re-elected. File Photo.

If he had been re-elected, John would have been paid out the full amount. As it stands, he only received about 60 percent of the votes he needed, so he will only receive that percentage of his three years’ salary.

“When I was elected I knew there would $150,000 accrued by 2016. I budgeted getting $90,000 of it, and that’s about what I’ll get. So three years ago I guessed pretty accurately what the result was going to be,” laughs John.

He suggests the money be used for a couple of electric cars for the council, and has floated the idea both with outgoing mayor Stuart Crosby and newcomer Greg Brownless.

“The bottom line for me is, I’ve seen too many people go on council making promises they don’t deliver, and they’re never held to account. So this partial salary return was a way of reassuring people that I do what I say I’m going to do.”

In regards to his performance in the election, John believes his poor showing came down to not playing the political game as well as others.

“It was a privilege to be a councillor. I was surprised to get on, but I’m not surprised I lost this time.

“I could have put up meaningless billboards and said everything’s fine, haven’t I done a wonderful job. I could’ve said, as some councillors did, that the rate rises are down, and we’ve got the debt down. But I don’t believe those things are true, and it’s just not me to go down that route.”

As to his mayoral chances, John concedes it probably came down to ‘the devil you know’

“And I was probably the devil people didn’t know,” he muses.

Although he is no longer on council, he still takes an interest in it, and in particular with the lack of engagement with the public – something the new council could address.

“A lot of people think local government is broken. Our turnout is down again, by the looks of it. And just because people aren’t saying ‘no’, it does not necessarily equate to consent.”


Take the money John!

Posted on 10-10-2016 14:53 | By waima20

You deserve the money...I voted for you both times... because you were one of the few who stood that had any credibility! I offered you last election the use of my business building which is in a high profile location and you declined ... telling me "its not all about placards"


Posted on 10-10-2016 14:35 | By overit

I voted for you John and I am sorry to see you go. There are some Councillors who have been there for years who got re-elected, I am very disappointed they got back in, but that’s democracy.


Posted on 10-10-2016 12:15 | By Jimmy Ehu

John won me over despite my reluctance and was starting to make some fiscal sense!, now all that work has been canned and we get councillors Curach and Grainger reinstated, who have achieved nothing, ( please do not bring up the bridge toll thing), for me Robson under Gregs pragmatic control would have been good for the city, but not to be.

returned salary

Posted on 10-10-2016 11:47 | By Crash test dummies

Yes, that is what he agreed to do, a proportional basis. I just wish that the remainder would be reviewed and paid according to results achieved, most would get paid nothing and likely have to pay something in so then truly reflecting what they have achieved.

Over Promiced.

Posted on 09-10-2016 21:15 | By FunandGames

Well John I voted for you both times now. And will vote for you again if you stand. I think you did a lot of good. I believe you lost because you over promised, you promised more than an individual councilor could ever deliver, and therefore didn’t deliver.


Posted on 09-10-2016 18:22 | By ROCCO

Well John you have learned a very valuable lesson -never tell the truth or how it really is because B/S is more readily digested by the gullible brain dead and apathetic voters who can’t face up to reality.Let’s see what they think in 3 years time when the screw is turned. LOL


Posted on 09-10-2016 18:11 | By

he should not have to do it - he was employed rightfully and that is that !!


Posted on 09-10-2016 16:24 | By Colleen Spiro

I Don’t seem to think it was a percentage o his income....I seem to remember him saying that he would return his entire wage....I sure I have it on video somewhere....must search it up. And lease John, don’t claim it back as a donation please

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to make a comment. Login Now