Meeting documents

 To consider a report by the Police and Crime Commissioner.

The Panel considered a report by the Chief Executive, OPCC which outlined the appointment process for the selection of the Chief Constable for Dorset Police. 

The Chief Executive, OPCC explained that the confirmatory hearing for the appointment of the Chief Constable was required by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

The Chairman of the Police and Crime Panel had acted as a silent observer on the appointment process and confirmed that it had been clear, honest, unbiased and transparent and he was satisfied that the marking system was fair. The Chairman confirmed in writing to Panel member’s (copy to the OPCC) that the entire process had been clear, honest, unbiased and transparent.

The Police and Crime Commissioner introduced his preferred candidate to members, Mr James Vaughan and reminded members that a confirmation hearing was held in respect of Mr Vaughan’s appointment as Temporary Chief Constable exactly one year ago.

This vacancy had been advertised locally (PCC website) and nationally (Association of PCCs website) and feedback received confirmed that the national chief officer cohort knew about the vacancy.  However, with the vast majority of Chief Constable appointments in recent years, the campaign resulted in a similarly low number of applications; in this particular case one.

The Chief Executive made reference to the fact that there had only been 1 candidate for selection and highlighted the process and issues around this. He explained that the role of the Chief Constable was not what it used to be, and was more about trying to move resources around without not necessarily having the resources they needed. Alongside this the level of strategic risk that went with that role was also significant. He also highlighted that in a larger force the salary of a Deputy Chief Constable would not be that much different to a Chief Constable’s salary of a smaller force (such as Dorset) and felt that this could be a reason why there were no other applications.  He confirmed that the selection panel had received training for the selection process. References had now been taken for Mr Vaughan and no concerns had been raised.

In response to a request for further information on references the Chief Executive explained that for each of the competencies candidates were required to supply one or more referees for these. These included the PCC, the former Chief Constable, a range of staff associations, people at similar levels in partner agencies and also another Chief Constable.  Each referee was written to individually and provided with the evidence as supplied by the candidate for verification.  The Chief Executive was content that the process was robust and advised that no one had come back with any areas of concern.  On being asked whether two or three generic references were also taken, the PCC noted that if there had been an external candidate in the process he would have done so. 

Following a question about the scoring for the shortlisting, the Chief Executive advised that for each of the required areas there was a competency element.  Each panel member then scored against each one of the competencies individually.

In respect of employee support offered to the Chief Constable, the PCC advised that he was responsible for looking after the well-being of the Chief Constable as this was a key part of his role. PDRs were undertaken regularly and he spoke with the Chief Constable on a daily basis to check on his workload.  It was noted that both he and the Chief Constable had regular access to a psychologist.

Following a question from the Chairman regarding the professional expertise of the candidate, the PCC responded that he felt that Mr Vaughan brought massive operational knowledge to Dorset and his ability to measure the mood of the workforce was key.  Since his temporary appointment last year he had noticeably boosted the workforce and quite often turned up at the start of certain shifts (early and late) to welcome the workforce.

Mr Vaughan stated that throughout the selection process and with his working relationship with the Panel he had been able to demonstrate a range of experience.  His major in policing was crime, namely the investigation of serious crime and he was the National lead for forensic science.  He highlighted his track record along with the delivery of difficult efficiency programmes.  He had spent the last 6/7 years building a strong network of contacts throughout the region and county.

         The Chairman asked the following question:- The recent HMIC Public Perceptions of Policing report confirmed that it continued to be important to people that there was a visible police presence in their area, whether this is on foot (78% say it is important), or in a vehicle (77%).  How do you intend to balance this requirement against an increase in demand?

Mr Vaughan responded that this had been a topical debate in policing and he felt that there was a balance to be struck. Satisfying the demand for visible policing was difficult and he was very conscious of this.  In respect of neighbourhood policing he had ringfenced a visible brigade of men and women in communities so people knew who to go to.  He was also looking to work smarter, for example the force also had a huge online presence, with currently 100k followers on Twitter and Facebook. He also mentioned the publication of positive press stories which he felt gave assurance to members of the public there was an active police presence.

Members voted unanimously to endorse the recommendations of the Selection Panel and to also accept the recommendations in the Chief Executive’s report.

Resolved

That following full and comprehensive discussion the Commissioner’s preferred candidate of Mr James Vaughan for appointment to the post of Chief Constable be supported unanimously.

            Reason for Decision

To assist the Panel in conducting a fair review of the process followed by the Commissioner and the suitability of the preferred candidate.