Employment & Appointments Committee – 27th January Part 15 – Chief Executive

Cllr Holbrook suggested they use North West Employers. The officer answered that was part of the subscription. Cllr Green said he had written something down and read out the motion (which wasn’t circulated to the members of the public present). His motion proposed a subcommittee in the proportion 2:2:1. It was agreed it was not … Continue reading “Employment & Appointments Committee – 27th January Part 15 – Chief Executive”

Cllr Holbrook suggested they use North West Employers. The officer answered that was part of the subscription.

Cllr Green said he had written something down and read out the motion (which wasn’t circulated to the members of the public present).

His motion proposed a subcommittee in the proportion 2:2:1. It was agreed it was not appropriate to share a Chief Executive. The Head of Human Resources would consult with the subcommittee and it would be advertised at a salary of ~£130,000. The subcommittee’s duties would be advertising, job description, timetable/selection and a recommendation to Council. There would be no external consultants, but a local Chief Executive would be used as an external adviser.

Labour said they would agree to the motion if he removed the word local.

Cllr Bridson mentioned something else. She said a shared Chief Executive would’ve let to the furore over a shared MP. The officer said there was a robust performance management process. Cllr Mitchell seconded Cllr Green’s motion. It was agreed the makeup of the committee would be the Labour leader, Labour Deputy Leader, Conservative Leader and Conservative Deputy Leader and Lib Dem Leader.

Cllr Bridson confirmed that that was agreed unanimously. There was no item of non-exempt AOB. The motion to exclude the press and public from the remainder of the meeting was then passed and the press and public left.

The other items on the agenda considered in a closed session were allegations against employees, and early voluntary retirement/voluntary severance requests.

Employment & Appointments Committee – 27th January Part 14 – Chief Executive

Cllr Davies said he took a slightly different view, but would not push it to a vote. He said if they involving recruitment people that they would have a wide knowledge of the pool of talent. In addition they would have a knowledge of contracts in the private sector and local government.

He said they would benefit from consulting a chief executive or retired chief executive. He said it was the most important appointment that will be made and it is worth the investment. He said it should be based on consensus and this was also essential to go down this route. In an ideal world they would find a breadth of expertise and knowledge that a recruitment consultancy form could bring to the table which would lead to a better appointment.

Cllr McLaughlin asked as a point of info that there didn’t sem much difference in cost between the two forms of advertising and using an external adviser.

An officer answered for clarity that the amount was only for the online section of The Times. A search consultant would be over and above the costs in the report. The cost depended on the advice. Maybe a local Chief Executive could be used. It would depend on availability and choice.

Employment & Appointments Committee – 27th January Part 13 – Chief Executive

Cllr Davies said he accepted that. He hoped the appointment would be a success. There have been examples elsewhere and he made an assurance that it would be a permanent appointment. He then went on do talk about performance management, delivery and details.

Cllr Green said there was consensus, but he would start from the top. A clear appraisal would be really good and would refresh minds and whether it was necessary or right. There could be tweaking but this is what we expect. Cllr Davies agreed and the discussion moved onto timescale.

Cllr Green said another issue was the use of external consultants to which he had given some though. He didn’t believe they were needed as such over the selection process. However they could provide support with longlisting as well as supporting Chris and the people on the subcommittee. Their expertise and professionalism would be welcome in weeding out dodgy applications from those with a track record of success.

Cllr Holbrook asked for the committee’s views on consultants. He said they didn’t need them with regard to search, but will need support as the application process progresses from longlisting to shortlisting. There would be a mix of internal and external applicants. There was a level of difficulty for staff in giving fair and impartial advice. His view was that HR staff could access independent, impartial support and advice to assist. If it was with consultants it was a better economy. Support was necessary and he said we must make sure we take the necessary steps.

Employment & Appointments Committee – 27th January Part 12 – Chief Executive

Cllr Green said there was a performance management framework. Prior for the previous Chief Executive wanted to spend more time with his family, a 360 degrees set of proposals had been approved which included performance appraisals for the Chief Executive. This covered expectations and objectives and would be revisited. It was a good idea when going through the appointment to see how we performance manage the Chief Executive and it was good that the document had been approved.

Cllr Holbrook said “but erm, I favour, I favour the permanent appointment”. He then went on to say that they should institute proper proposals for the Chief Executive appraisal system. It had been agreed but not implemented. This piece of work can be done before the new Chief Executive takes up their post. Regarding the framework for removing the Chief Executive they should plan for success. He said just to add he thinks, but he’s not sure that they would have to pay them out if it was a fixed term which can be a very expensive option. He said “Also, erm, the process brings stability and certainty to the management structure.” He added that it was fluid and not on a sustainable basis going forward.

Employment & Appointments Committee – 27th January Part 11 – Chief Executive

Cllr Davies said it was “important to have consensus”. He was not specifically seeking to creation division. He agreed over the shared Chief Executive issue. This happened to a couple of London Boroughs. Given the geography and the fact we were the 9th largest Metropolitan Borough in the country and 3rd largest in the NW and given the amount of change we needed a dedicated Chief Exec. He said it would be interesting to see how London, especially works. Regarding the type of contract he had no strong views either way. There was a downside to a permanent contract, what happens if it went spectacularly wrong? A fixed term contract gave more opportunity to remove someone.

There were good quality candidates if it was just for a finite period of time. If a permanent contract was suggested his thoughts were if it does go wrong where do that leave us? Reflecting on the salary, a good salary would attract good quality candidates. In the current climate the public wouldn’t understand or support a large salary, he suggested £130,000.

Cllr Green said circa £130,000. Cllr Davies replied by saying there would be room for manuever. He asked about the contract issue.