Agenda, decisions and minutes

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of 19 January 2006 as a correct record. 

The Minutes of the meeting of 19 January 2006  were confirmed as a correct record.

The Minutes of the meeting of 19 January 2006 were confirmed as a correct record, but it was noted that that timescale for the recruitment of a Chief Executive indicated by Mouchel Parkman (Minute 6) had been indicative only.

The Leader reported that Management Team would not be attending the meeting.  The Chief Executive and the Finance and Resources Director had the right to attend, but had decided against it.

To consider the exclusion of the public from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that consideration is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 9 and 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the reminder of the meeting on the grounds that consideration is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 9 and 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

RESOLVED that the public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting on the grounds that discussion is likely to involve the disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1, 9 and 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

The attached briefing note is a copy of that discussed at the Resources and Staffing Portfolio Holder’s meeting on 14 February 2006.

A briefing note from Human Resources on relevant aspects of employment law was received.

The Human Resources Manager confirmed that recent case law indicated that a Member could be held personally responsible for his or her actions towards an employee.  The Leader urged all to be careful of their words and ensure they treated employees with respect, whilst giving an assurance that this caution did not stop Members asking questions or being critical where necessary.

Councillor Cathcart drew attention to the reference to the changes in senior management being a high-risk strategy.

Proposals from Mouchel Parkman attached:

1. Summary of current job descriptions and person specifications
2. Draft job description
3. Draft competencies
4. Draft person specification

By a majority vote, the Committee RESOLVED that

Jane Stone from Mouchel Parkman outlined their brief: to analyse current duties and align these to draft job profiles to capture key competencies; provide some outline for general competencies; and look at the organisational implications.  They were looking at posts not postholders.  Detailed job profiles had been produced for the existing posts and this led to the conclusion that although current job descriptions and person specifications were service specific and varied in style and content, they

already reflected a high degree of responsibility.  The aim was to introduce a one-Council approach where a detailed functional description was unnecessary.

As to individual postholders, a process existed for changing job descriptions and it was hoped that this could be achieved by agreement since the proposals were not very different from existing job descriptions.  Some Members expressed concern about the potential effect of new job descriptions and the new structure on second tier postholders, including the possibility that there would be gaps to fill.  They were, however, advised that the recommendation was to retain the present second tier structure at this stage, for the new senior Management Team to consider.  This would include any gaps in service cover.  Second tier posts already had the authority to take on the responsibilities designated for them.  Any individual issues would be for management and human resources consideration.

It was noted that the business process review would drive any further changes.

The Leader reminded Members of the need to focus on creating an organisation fit to deliver the best possible service while giving value for money in the circumstances of the reduced budget.  He acknowledged that all the implications were not yet known and that this was causing concern, but referred to the savings expected from this project as set out in the Medium Term Financial Strategy, inviting suggestions on alternative sources of savings.

By a majority vote, the Committee RESOLVED that

Councillor Cathcart recorded his continuing fundamental concerns about the premise on which the project was based.

A report from Mouchel Parkman on the implications of alternatives is attached. 

In view of the finding of the consultants that the current second tier structure was fit for purpose at this stage, the Committee, by a majority vote, RESOLVED that

Jane Stone emphasised that the tables of possible division of functions were not intended to be recommendations, only ideas to consider.  In response to queries, she confirmed that each function line did not necessarily equate to one Assistant Director and that no assumption had been made of an Assistant Director for Customer Services.

It was recognised that the basic structure of reporting lines had to be decided in order to inform the advertisements, but that these should be open to amendment.  Members favoured table 3, which split functions between support and service delivery, but considered that planning policy should be a matter of report to the Chief Executive given its high profile.

Further concerns were expressed about potential confusion over reporting lines and gaps in expertise and the financial implications of filling any gaps, with calls for further information to give reassurance on these matters.  The Leader pointed out, however, that unless the division of functions was agreed, the advertisement for a Chief Executive could not proceed.  He agreed to suggestions that a time limit be put on a review of the second tier, but urged that there should be no delay in the implementation of the senior Management Team proposals.  The Leader again gave an assurance that if problems were encountered they would be taken to the first possible Member forum.

In view of the finding of the consultants that the current second tier structure was fit for purpose at this stage, the Committee, by a majority vote, RESOLVED that

The Mouchel Parkman representatives left the meeting.

Notes attached. 

Notes from the workshop held on 20 January 2006 were received without comment.

To note the results 

The Committee, by a majority vote, RESOLVED that

The Leader reported that he and the Human Resources Manager had met each of the Management Team individually and that three letters requesting consideration for voluntary redundancy had now been received.  Extracts from the letters were read.

Concern was expressed about loss of continuity if all three requests were accepted and Members asked whether one request could be deferred.  The alternative view was that no-one should be obliged to continue working in such circumstances.  The Human Resources Manager advised on the Council’s redundancy policy and on the rights of the individuals under employment law, suggesting that it might be possible to negotiate a deferred end of contract with one of the Directors, but that a definite end date would be required.  It was noted that the policy guaranteed an interview for any internal applicant, but that assimilation would only apply if there were only one candidate, meeting the required criteria.

Considerable distress and anger were voiced that it had been the actions of Members which had precipitated this number of requests for redundancy.

The Committee, having considered the option of deferring the request by the Finance and Resources Director and understanding that a request could be considered at a later date, by a majority vote RESOLVED that

By a majority vote, the Committee RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL that

The Chairman of Council was asked to take steps to take the recommendations to a special meeting of Council.

The Committee

By a majority vote, the Committee RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL that

The Chairman of Council was asked to take steps to take the recommendations to a special meeting of Council.

The Committee

Report to follow. 

No report was presented but the work done by Mouchel Parkman was noted.

Draft redundancy and recruitment timetables attached. 

Draft redundancy and recruitment timetables were presented and it was noted that

a)      if there were internal candidates the timetable for the external recruitment process would slip;

b)      any expenditure on external recruitment would have to be tailored to the budget;

c)      the appointments panel would be given specialist support.

It was confirmed that Council in November 2005 had delegated the whole project, including appointments, to the Transformation Committee.

To discuss the appropriate approach. 

It was NOTED that the Chief Executive had been asked to provide a weekly update to all staff, and

It was NOTED that the Chief Executive had been asked to provide a weekly update to all staff, and

The next steps were to arrange a special Council meeting and proceed to advertisements.

It was noted that to halt the project at this stage would raise serious employment issues and Councillor Cathcart emphasised the need to be careful with the rest of the elements of the project.

The Chairman of Council issued a warning to all Members to show respect to the officers discussed at this meeting and not to speak to or about them in a disrespectful manner.

Monday, 6 March 2006 at 12 noon. 

Monday, 6 March 2006 at 12 noon, to agree the advertisement for the Chief Executive’s post.