Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor James Palmer.  Councillor Nigel Manning attended as substitute for Councillor Palmer.

To confirm the minutes of the last meeting of the Committee held on 10 February 2015.

The minutes of the last meeting of the Employment Committee held on 10 February 2015 were confirmed and signed.

In accordance with the revised local Code of Conduct, a councillor is required to disclose at the meeting any disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) that they may have in respect of any matter for consideration on this agenda.  Any councillor with a DPI must notparticipate in any discussion or vote regarding that matter and they must also withdraw from the meeting immediately before consideration of the matter.

If that DPI has not been registered, the councillor must notify the Monitoring Officer of the details of the DPI within 28 days of the date of the meeting.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The Committee is asked to consider passing the following resolution:-

"That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the paragraphs of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Act indicated below".

The Committee

RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public and press be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraphs 1 and 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the 1972 Act.

Report to follow.

The Committee considered the Managing Director’s report on the recruitment and selection arrangements undertaken in respect of the appointment of the Executive Head of Governance.

The Managing Director explained the important role played by the Executive Head of Governance/Monitoring Officer and that the Council’s future, particularly in the next two years, was likely to be very challenging.

The Committee considered a number of the key issues that were relevant in the context of this appointment, which included:

·        New political administration following the Borough Elections, with 16 councillors not seeking re-election

·        The need to progress and adopt a Local Plan

·        Progressing regeneration schemes

·        Focus on commercialisation and alternative legal structures

The Managing Director set out the process that had been undertaken to recruit an Executive Head of Governance and reminded the Committee of the temporary senior management structure the Council had approved in October 2013.  She confirmed that she would be bringing a report to Council in early summer, which would set out the results of a review which had been undertaken by two external consultants.  Early indications were that the review would ask the Council to confirm the current structure.  The review would highlight the need to revisit the senior management structure within two years, by which time universal credit would have been introduced.  The impact of this significant change would need to be considered alongside the progress the Council had made on the Corporate Plan, to establish whether the current structure was both fit for purpose and affordable. 

The Committee considered the first of two options – Option A involved the Managing Director and HR and Business Improvement Manager reporting the results of the long list process, and considering the skills match of the preferred candidate compared to the person specification.  The Committee noted that the preferred candidate was the Monitoring Officer at his current authority but that this had been a recent appointment (2015), although he did have earlier experience as Monitoring Officer at another council between 1998 and 2004.  The Committee also noted that the preferred candidate did not have returning officer experience and this was a desirable qualification.  The Committee was, however, impressed with his track record of managing the legal service, particularly the joint service delivery model.

After careful consideration, the Committee

RESOLVED: That the preferred candidate referred to in the report submitted to the Committee be not short-listed in respect of the appointment of Executive Head of Governance.

The Committee therefore went on to consider Option B.

The Managing Director reminded the panel that Satish Mistry had been with the Council in an interim capacity since 2012, and had served the Council well.  His previous experience as a Director of a London Borough and his earning capacity meant that he would not consider accepting the post on the scale offered, but he would consider accepting the post if a market supplement was payable.  The Managing Director reminded the panel that the Employment Committee had approved a market rate supplement policy at its meeting held  ...  view the full minutes text for item EM8