RUNNING adult services for a city such as York is a big, responsible job. Whoever takes it on will be in charge of social services, elderly people’s residential homes and vital support services such as respite care and home care.

They will be ultimately responsible for the wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable adults in the city. It is hugely important to get the right person for the job, therefore.

We must still question, however, whether there is really any need for the city council to feel it has to pay over the odds to get the right person.

The going rate for a director at the city council is between £88,000 and £102,000.

Yet councillors will be asked on Monday if they will agree to pay an additional ‘market supplement’ to enable a candidate of the right calibre to be recruited.

Why on earth should they? It may be true that council directors in York earn less than at some other councils. But York is a comparatively small city, with fewer problems than some big urban centres. Surely a salary of £100,000 and the chance to work in a beautiful location should be enough of an incentive.

If the council can’t find the right person for that money, then perhaps there is something wrong with its recruitment procedures.

The authority sometimes behaves as though it has an infinite pot of our money to burn. It wasted many tens of thousands of pounds on the bungled Lendal Bridge experiment; lost more money on the Grand Departy; and came in for criticism earlier this year for employing Sarah Tanburn as an interim director of city and environmental services at a rate of £700 a day.

All this while elsewhere it has been cutting vital frontline services. The council needs to remember that it is our money it is spending. We hope councillors will bear that in mind on Monday.