Agenda, decisions and minutes

Before the start of the meeting, Council stood in remembrance of Councillor Dr John Heap, who had died the previous day. 

Council accepted Councillor RF Bryant as Vice-Chairman for the meeting. 

Declarations of personal interests were declared by:

The Chairman made the following statement :

"Members - I hope you will agree with me when I say I must object most strongly to the front page and the article on page five of the Saturday edition of the Cambridge Evening News, which I found sickening.

"Was it really necessary to have photos of the four senior officers at SCDC plastered over the front page?  These men are not criminals.  They have committed no crime.  They have served the council honourably and well, with loyalty and integrity, and what's more continue to do so.  I admire them for this.

"The decision to proceed with restructuring the management was taken by members, not officers.  These men do not have voting powers.  To picture them lining up to pick and choose as much as they can get is indefensible and frankly ridiculous.   Members will make decisions strictly in accordance with employment law and relevant local government law.

"I find it hard to believe that the Cambridge Evening News does not appreciate the invidious position these men have been put in following the actions of a very small minority of members and the articles of that paper and can only conclude that the paper's aim is to cause as much harm and hurt as possible.

"I intend to support these officers in whatever way I can and would ask that before the Cambridge Evening News prints any more such articles it stops and thinks whether it really does have the welfare of the taxpayers of South Cambridgeshire at heart.

"Our taxpayers, and that includes all members of the council, will have no cause to thank the Cambridge Evening News if it continues to undermine the morale not only of these four officers, but also the entire workforce at SCDC, who have been shocked by the treatment suffered by their senior managers.

"What appears to be a deliberately destructive campaign by the Cambridge Evening News does nobody any good, least of all the staff who are trying their hardest to get services out to the taxpayers of South Cambs and are doing so with great success.

"Members I draw your attention to some of our successes."

The Chairman then outlined some of the achievements of the Council and awards recently received, and drew the Council's attention to compliments received by the Council covering all departments."

During the statement, Councillor R Page stood, stating that he wished to raise a point of order, but was requested by the Chairman to sit.

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 1and 11 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Council, a proposal to permit the public to remain having been defeated, RESOLVED by 31 votes to 4, with 4 abstentions, that the public be excluded 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 and 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended.

Councillor Mrs EM Heazell proposed, seconded by Councillor R Hall, that the public should be excluded from the rest of the meeting.

Councillor NJ Scarr proposed, seconded by Councillor Mrs DP Roberts, that the meeting remain open, on the grounds that only a small amount of the information due for discussion was specifically personal, and need not be disclosed.

Councillor Page made accusations against the Council as a whole and against the Head of Legal Services and, on the proposal of the Chairman, seconded by the acting Vice-Chairman, Council with 6 votes against,

Councillor Page left the meeting.

Councillor Mrs Heazell stated that she believed the discussion needed to be in private because of the possible behaviour of some Members, whereas Councillor Mrs Spink suggested that the major concern was the fear that press reports would give the public an inaccurate impression.  The Leader pointed out that the reporter present was relatively new; and defended absolutely a free press, while drawing attention to the need to protect employees especially in view of recent press coverage.  He therefore reluctantly supported exclusion of the public.

Councillor Mrs Roberts, supported by Councillor Hockney, proposed that the Chairman call an informal meeting of all Members or with groups, to try to resolve the atmosphere which had grown up within the Council.  They were advised to raise this matter at a later date if they wished to pursue it since no prior notice had been given.

The proposal to permit the public to remain was defeated by a majority vote, 6 voting against with 2 abstentions.

Council then, by 31 votes to 4, with 4 abstentions,

RESOLVED    that the public be excluded 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 and 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended.

Councillors Mrs SA Hatton and NJ Scarr recorded their votes against the resolution.

To consider the recommendation of the Transformation Committee at its meeting of 20 February 2006 that

Council, by 31 votes to 7, with 2 abstentions, RESOLVED that

Council further, by 30 votes to 6 with 2 abstentions, RESOLVED that

The Leader applauded the Chief Executive as an asset to the Council and for his willingness to work with Members for the greater good of the Council and the residents of the District.  The Chief Executive had been offered the opportunity to retire early through redundancy and had indicated his wish to accept it.  The Transformation Committee had taken specialist legal advice and recommended acceptance of the terms put forward.

The Leader further explained the potential financial implications should Council refuse the application for voluntary redundancy outright or reject the discretionary element of the proposed package, in view of recent events.  Other than the discretionary element, the proposed payments were in accordance with the Council’s policies on redundancy for any member of staff.

In response to queries, the Leader and officers explained that:

   i.                  The flexibility referred to related to the termination date, which could be adjusted to meet the needs of either Mr Ballantyne or the Council

 ii.                  A compromise agreement was where the employer and the employee reached agreement to refrain from instituting proceedings in relation to the contractual terms of employment. The agreement, once reached, was binding on both parties

iii.                  The difference between the figures now presented and those originally shown as the total cost was because the present figures related to the year 2006/07 only, whereas the earlier figures showed rolled up benefits over a number of years.  The Finance and Resources Director gave a revised total cost figure incorporating the information now being considered by Council.

iv.                  If necessary to cover the interregnum, the Council would appoint an acting Chief Executive or Returning Officer

 v.                  The Council had complied with the Constitution and all statutory requirements in this matter

Councillor Dr Bard asked, and it was agreed, that flexibility on the termination date should be delegated to the Transformation Committee as a whole, with ratification by Cabinet.

Councillor Cathcart reiterated his concerns with the approach of the project; stating his preference for considering the second tier and the shape of the authority before taking the action now proposed.  His concerns were shared by Councillors Mrs Roberts and NJ Scarr.  Councillor Mrs Spink, however, pointed out that a new Chief Executive would have his or her own ideas about the rest of the staff structure and suggested that Council should make this possible.  The Leader added that the Heads of Service structure had been found fit for purpose.  Councillor MJ Mason also expressed his unhappiness with the project, particularly the sidelining of the Employment Committee.  He accepted the challenge of the Leader to provide the Chairman with evidence of non-compliance with policies.

Recorded votes were requested and agreed.

Council, by 31 votes to 7, with 2 abstentions, RESOLVED that