Agenda and minutes

To note under the provisions of the formula membership the attendance of the following nominee:

FOR INFORMATION

RESOLVED:  To note the attendance at this meeting of the following duly nominated Member:-

That the minutes of the meeting of the Chief Officers’ Employment Panel held on 14 July 2016 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2016 be taken as read and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendments:-

Minute 68 – Declarations of Interest – Councillors Barry Macleod-Cullinane and Paul Osborn campaigned against public sector bodies that made pay-off payments of over £100,000.

Minute 69 – Appointment of Vice-Chair – The following words be added as a preamble to the resolution ‘Having received two nominations for the appointment of Vice Chair and being put to the vote it was’.

Report of the Corporate Director of People.

Members received a report of the Corporate Director, People, which sought approval for changes to the remuneration of two senior officer posts.

In introducing the report, the Corporate Director, People, stated that the proposal to uplift the salaries of two senior officers was a difficult issue to bring before Members given the current financial situation but that it was in the interests of the Council to do so.  He explained that the uplift was essentially a retention payment to two highly marketable officers, whilst making £100,000 savings to senior management costs.  He emphasised the risk to the Council should the officers leave and advised that they had been approached by both the public and private sector.  The Corporate Director added that he had evidence in the form of recent job advertisements that it would be more expensive to replace the officers than to make the proposed retention payments.

A Member challenged the business case and expressed the view that the report had a number of shortcomings and was poorly presented, stating that it was not clear what salary the officers currently received.  He stated that the job evaluations had not indicated that the salaries should be increased and that the business case only met two of the four criteria set out in the pay policy criteria.  The Corporate Director advised that the current Director of Adult Social Services (DASS) was at the top of grade D2 and that the proposed supplement would result in an annual salary of £120,324 which was at the lower end of the salaries offered in recent adverts for similar posts.  The DASS had previously been in receipt of an uplift in salary due to her role in Leisure Services which had now been withdrawn following a re-organisation.  Similarly, a payment for being an Emergency Response Officer had been withdrawn and the DASS had taken a decision to forgo an essential car user allowance.  The retention payment was also proposed as the postholder had taken on additional responsibilities..

In response to the comments in relation to job evaluation, the Corporate Director advised that this was not the sole justification for proposing an uplift.  The proposals had been made in line with the Council’s retention policy.  For the DASS, the payment would result in a standstill position in terms of salary.  The Head of Adult Social Care had been appointed at the top of the salary scale three years ago and had not received any uplift despite taking on significant additional responsibilities due to the reduction in the size of the management team.  The Corporate Director stated that he did not agree with the legal opinion that there was no market justification for the retention payments and reiterated that recent advertisements for similar roles demonstrated the salaries currently being offered elsewhere were in line with those proposed.  He tabled copies of the advertisements for Members information.

A Member questioned whether the proposed payment would resolve the recruitment and retention issues if the payments did not result in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.