Not for the first time, Kent County Council has shown that when it comes to transparency, its view of what the public has a right to know depends rather on what the circumstances are.

It will not, we are told, be disclosing the details of the severance package it has agreed with its departing managing director Katherine Kerswell because it is bound by a confidentiality agreement. Ah, the good old confidentiality clause.

Perhaps with all the frenzy over trying to come to an agreement with Mrs Kerswell, the authority overlooked its new obligations to publish such information under the transparency regime that, to his credit, the communities secretary Eric Pickles has insisted all councils must follow.

Specifically, KCC appears to have not given much thought to a change in the Audit and Account Regulations 2009 that ensures the public is entitled to much more detailed information about the remuneration of senior council staff.

This places a requirement on councils to disclose how much senior employees have earned in salary, fees and allowances, bonuses and "the total amount of any compensation for loss of employment paid to or receivable by the person and any other payments made to or receivable by the person in connection with the termination of their employment by the relevant body."

In other words, everything about the pay and perks, as well as pension value, of senior staff for the financial year - including their names if they are earning more than £150,000.

So KCC will have to detail the sums involved in scrapping the group managing director's role when it next publishes its full accounts - probably around June.

This does, of course, give the council the advantage of hoping that enough time will have passed for everyone to have forgotten about it but I suspect that may be a vain hope.

So, why doesn't KCC grasp the nettle instead of hiding behind this fig leaf? One of the reasons is that it has form when it comes to eye-watering pay-offs to departing staff, most notably when it agreed to pay former chief executive Peter Gilroy £200,000 on the day he left the authority as part of the package agreed when his contract was extended by a year.

So, it undoubtedly wants to avoid a further clutch of embarrassing headlines.

Its own avowed approach to transparency is - and I quote from the county council leader Paul Carter - is that "it is enormously important that residents of the county who pay substantial taxes know where their money goes. We have no problems with that at all."

Could there be a more compelling case for disclosure of how taxpayers' money is being spent?

KCC is forever telling us how much its controversial re-structuring has saved the taxpayer. And its report proposing the deletion of the post of managing director emphasises how much it will save by not paying her salary - £265,000 a year.

If it can be so transparent on these matters, we are surely entitled to know the other side of the coin.

It comes to something when the council grits the roads, then has to tell people to forget going outside the borough.

That's what happened yesterday.

Kent County Council could not keep their roads clear in quite the same way that Medway has.

Part of it is down to luck. If the gritters leave at the right time they can catch the snow when there are vehicles about (to stir up the salt slurry they deposit) just after it has fallen.

The problem for KCC seems to have been that they mistimed things.

Having said that an acquaintance was driving on the M2 from Faversham the other night and it was down to a single track. There didn't appear to be any activity.

I also wonder about whether there is more to the chaos than people might be willing to admit.

The Highways Agency invested heavily in a new fleet of gritting lorries a year ago. They used a revolutionary mix of salt - and water.

Almost as soon as the fleet - it replaced all the old lorries - was in service it was called upon to deal with last November's snow.

We all recall the scenes: snow piled up long after the wagons had spread their loads.

There was plenty of traffic to churn it.

I wonder whether the ministerial investigation that was announced on Wednesday will eventually find that diluting salt is not the way to get rid of snow.

***

I have a lot of sympathy for Norman Kemp's concerns about keeping bus services operating. He's the hands-on bus driving boss of Nu-Venture.

Theirs were the only buses on the roads of north Kent and Medway for much of yesterday.

He pointed out that buses used to keep going through thick and thin.

That was especially useful at a time when the rest of us were stuck at home.

I didn't get into my car yesterday. I live in a slight valley and the residential roads were axle-deep in snow.

I would willingly have caught a bus, even if it took several hours to get to work (I live about 12 miles from the office so walking was out). Arriva had all their buses indoors "for safety".

That may be true. It may also have something to do with insurance premiums and private ownership.

A slight slip and the bus could be damaged - that would put it off the road until it was repaired if the bus firm was to stay within the traffic laws.

In the days of state ownership, when buses cost £1,000 a piece and not £150,000 as today, they would keep going until it was impossible to move any more.

I remember one coach driver who drove from Cheltenham to Weymouth in the 1970s. He got to Dorchester where the police stopped him from going any further.

"The hill into Weymouth is impassable," he was told. "There's a train about to leave - I would suggest you catch it."

He did. It was the last train or bus between the neighbouring towns for a week.

That was when the driver was allowed to return to his coach. It started first time, and after a few more adventures arrived back in Cheltenham seven days and a couple of hours late.

Those were the days when men were men - and bus firms were a breed apart.