The purpose
of the meeting is to consider the report in relation to the Senior Management
Arrangements.
Minutes:
The Director of Legal and
Governance Services and the Director of Finance submitted a report in respect
of senior management arrangements for Council’s consideration. The purpose of
the report was for Council to consider whether it wished to change the organisation’s
senior management arrangements.
Typically a report on senior management arrangements would be brought by
the Chief Executive as the Head of Paid Service. However, in view of the
potential for conflicts of interest, both the Elected Mayor and the Chief
Executive had agreed that this report would be developed by the Director of
Legal and Governance Services and the Director of Finance in their respective
statutory roles of Monitoring Officer and Chief Finance Officer.
The Local Government Association had provided information on the content
of the report including the alternative models.
The Director of Legal and Governance Services clarified that, if members
chose to change the senior staff arrangements, it would automatically trigger
the voluntary redundancy of the Chief Executive.
If Members opted to change the senior management arrangements, the two
potential operating models included within the report for members to choose
from, included the Chief Operating Officer model or the option for an Existing
Director within the Council to become the Head of Paid Service, in addition to
their existing role. The benefits and risks of each model were set out within
the report.
Members were advised that if Council supported a change in senior management
arrangements and designated an interim Head of Paid Service, the interim Head
of Paid Service would provide a report to Council, no later than three months
from their designation (the date of the report), setting out in detail the
proposed senior management arrangements, including any constitutional changes
required as determined by the Monitoring Officer.
The Council would also be required to designate an interim Electoral
Registration Officer and Returning Officer, as there was a by-election scheduled
for 16 December
2021. Given that the
responsibility for elections fell within the remit of Legal and Governance
Services, it was proposed that the Director of Legal and Governance Services be
designated interim Returning Officer and interim Electoral Registration
Officer.
The Director of Finance advised that both internal and external audit
had been consulted with regard to the content of the report and their feedback
and any financial implications for the Council, had been included within the
report.
The Director of Finance advised that there was an error at paragraph 59
of the report. The report stated that the Chief Executive contributed 12.5% of
his salary to the Local Government Pension Scheme, however the actual figure
was 11.8%.
The Director of Finance advised that where an employee chose to take
voluntary redundancy, there was an automatic uplift to their redundancy payment
of 25%. The additional cost of £22k, as a result of the uplift would be
outweighed by the cost of £53,314, if the Chief Executive was subject to
compulsory redundancy.
The Local Government Pension Scheme regulations required that an
employee over the required age and with sufficient service who was made
redundant would receive the early payment of their pension. The cost of the
early payment of the pension fell to the Council and was estimated to be
£420,000, and this was a contractual requirement. This sum would be reimbursed
directly into the Teesside Pension Fund; it would not be a direct payment to
the Chief Executive.
Paragraph 61 of the report
indicated that if the Council chose to move to the Chief Operating Officer
model, there would be a saving of £24,467 per annum.
If the Council chose to move to the Chief Operating Officer option and
merged the Chief Executive role with an existing Director’s post, the savings
to the Council would be £187,368 per annum.
If the Council chose to delete the Chief Executive role completely and
merge the Head of Paid Service role with an existing Director’s post, the
savings would be £196,437 per annum, which would include an uplift in salary of
£26k for the Director who would take on the role of Head of Paid Service. A
potential saving would also be available from a reduction of one Business
Support Officer (PA) post, due to the reduction in the overall size of the
Leadership Management Team.
The Director of Finance pointed out that none of the savings detailed in
the report had been assumed in the Medium Term Financial Plan, so how the savings
would be utilised would be a matter for discussion by members.
The Chair invited members to comment on the report. The Chair reminded
all members that this was a business meeting of the Council and he requested
that members focus their questions and comments on the content and the
recommendations contained within the report. He requested that members avoid
making any personal comments in relation to any individual mentioned within the
report.
The following points were
raised during the ensuing discussion of the report:
·
Labour group leader
indicated that the group would vote in favour of retaining existing senior
management arrangements.
·
A strong leader was
essential, and the Chief Executive role had served the Council well in
challenging times.
·
Retaining the role of
Chief Executive ensured that there was a clear line of accountability, which
was essential, particularly while the Council was being monitored by Ofsted.
·
The negatives listed at
paragraph 26 of the report would not have been relevant in relation to previous
Mayors of the Council.
·
A strong Chief
Executive was essential where there was a strong Mayor in office.
·
The Corporate Affairs
and Audit Committee had considered a report in relation to issues that had
occurred at Liverpool City Council, and for that reason, it was essential not
to weaken the role of the Chief Executive.
·
Both of the alternative
management models would provide the Chief Executive/Head of Paid Service with
less reach and authority.
·
It would cost the
Council money to replace the Chief Executive and the Council would be much
weaker if the role of Chief Executive did not exist.
·
Challenge was essential
and the removal of the role of Chief Executive could potentially make the
Council unstable.
·
All organisations
should review their senior management arrangements from time to time.
·
The Chief Executive,
the Local Government Association and Senior Officers had all been involved in
discussions about the report.
·
The Council had a
strong strategic leader who worked well with partner organisations.
·
The Council had the
opportunity of realising £200k in savings.
·
The cost of the
redundancy payment was astronomical when taking into account that the Council
was considering a rise in Council Tax.
·
The report could be
deferred to a later date as the Government was considering imposing a cap on
redundancy payments.
·
Reference to meetings
that had taken place with the Local Government Association were included within
the committee report however there was no appendices to the report in relation
to minutes of the meetings that had taken place.
·
Risk
of silo working within the management team.
·
If Council lost its
strategic focus it would be bad for the town.
·
Need confidence in
leadership of the Council.
·
Comparison with
Leicester was not appropriate because of the difference in size and political arrangements
of the two Councils.
·
Portfolios were too big
for one person to manage.
·
The anticipated savings
were not guaranteed.
·
The Council was only 18
months away from local elections and any decision made in relation to senior
management arrangements could be reversed.
·
Would have been better
to discuss the issue with political groups before bringing the report to
Council, which would have saved officer time in preparing the report.
·
Any decision to adjourn
the meeting would cost more in officer time.
·
Current Chief Executive
kept staff at all levels informed.
·
The Council had
employed four different Chief Executives over a relatively short space of time
and the current arrangements offered stability.
·
Without the Chief
Executive post, the Council would not be as efficient.
·
It would be a
retrograde step without a Chief Executive as there needed to be a barrier
between the Mayor and the Chief Executive.
·
Revised arrangements
would place an unnecessary burden on the Director of Adult Social Care and
Health Integration.
·
Concerns regarding what
the savings would be used for.
·
Overload of
responsibilities in the portfolios.
·
If the Chief Executive
role was taken away, the Council would lose a means of carrying out checks and
balances.
·
The savings were all
hypothetical as the role could be brought back at a later date.
·
The amount for
voluntary redundancy which included the 25% increase was excessive.
·
Appreciated the role of
the Chief Executive, in particular the handling by the current Chief Executive
of issues during the Covid pandemic.
·
Would support current
senior management arrangements, could not support half a million redundancy
package.
·
Report was more about
an issue between the Mayor and current Chief Executive.
·
Report did not detail
who would make decision whether the new model was working. The Monitoring
Officer advised that it would be Council who made the decision with regard to
whether the new model was appropriate.
·
Would have been better
to discuss with Group Leaders before producing the report for Council.
·
Need to look at the
situation from an economic aspect rather than a political aspect.
·
Opportunity to make
savings.
·
Good existing directors
who could take on Chief Executive role.
·
Opportunity to save tax
payers money.
·
Query re checks that
the Chief Executive could make on the Mayor. The Monitoring Officer explained
the role of the three Statutory Officers (the Chief Executive, the Monitoring
Officer and the Section 151 Officer), in the decision making process.
·
Financial savings
should not be main focus of the report.
·
Need to focus on the
governance of the Council and support existing arrangements.
·
Focus should be on
vision for the town.
During the discussion a motion to defer the report until the Government produced guidance on capping redundancy payments was proposed. The motion was not seconded.
Prior to the vote being taken, the Monitoring Officer explained that the first item that members would be voting on was whether they wished to change the organisation’s senior management arrangements. If Members voted against changing the existing management arrangements, then the remainder of the recommendations would no longer be relevant, and as a consequence, they would not require a vote.
The Monitoring Officer conducted a vote on whether the Council wished to change the existing senior management arrangements, specifically in relation to the role of Chief Executive.
Following a vote, it was ORDERED as follows:
That the existing senior management arrangements, specifically in relation to the role of the Chief Executive, be retained.
Supporting documents: