To receive a presentation
from the HR Strategic Lead, Shaping Dorset Council.
Minutes:
Nicola
Houwayek (HR Strategic Lead, Shaping Dorset Council)
attended the meeting to provide a presentation with regard to the process for
the appointment of a permanent Chief Executive for the Dorset Council. The presentation included background to the
process, including the recruitment process timeline and detail of the
membership of the Senior Appointments Committee.
In
response to questions raised with regard to the composition of the Senior
Appointments Committee it was noted that the members were acting in their role
as Shadow Councillors and that it was a politically balanced committee. There were 8 members appointed to the
committee which had been agreed by Full Council at its first meeting and it was
noted that the Chairman would have a casting vote in the case of an equality of
votes. A concern was noted that there
should be an odd number of members on the committee.
Clarification
was sought in respect of the members of the Senior Appointments Committee and
which councils they were also members of.
A concern was expressed in respect of the public perception of
this. The Chairman confirmed the
councillors’ council membership as follows:
Councillor
Anthony Alford – West Dorset District Council
Councillor
Andy Canning – West Dorset District Council and Dorset County Council
Councillor
Graham Carr-Jones – North Dorset District Council and Dorset County Council
Councillor
Jeff Cant – Weymouth and Portland Borough Council
Councillor
Spencer Flower – East Dorset District Council and Dorset County Council
Councillor
Colin Huckle – Weymouth and Portland Borough Council
Councillor
Rebecca Knox – Dorset County Council
Councillor
Gary Suttle – Purbeck District Council
In
response to a question, it was confirmed that the process for appointing tier 2
officers would be similar but with a lower level of stakeholder
engagement. Further information on the
tier 2 appointment process and timescale would be considered at the next
meeting of the Shadow Executive Committee.
It was agreed that a further presentation would be provided to the next
meeting of the Shadow Overview and Scrutiny Committee with regard to this
process.
Members
considered the issues arising from the presentation and during discussion the
following points were raised:
·
The stakeholder involvement could include representatives of public
sector partners that the council worked with including, health partners,
housing associations, youth panel and the Local Enterprise Partnership as well
as businesses. The stakeholder feedback
to the panel would be important and properly considered
·
In respect of the psychometric testing, members were informed that an
occupational psychologist would attend to talk through the results with the
panel. It was noted that psychometric
testing was used widely for senior appointments
·
In response to a question, organisational costs in respect of
redundancies were noted which would be met by each council
·
It was noted that the final approach to the Chief Executive salary had
not been agreed and would depend on the successful candidate offered the
appointment. A salary range had been
agreed
·
Terms and conditions such as amount of annual leave were standard terms
offered to Chief Executives
·
In response to a question as to whether councillors had a pecuniary
interest in respect of the appointment process and the public perception of
this, the Programme Director noted that the appointments process was about
bringing together the best people for the job and that redundancy costs for existing
chief executives was not a factor in the decision making process. The Interim Monitoring Officer noted that
this was not about the pecuniary interests of the councillors involved but that
the cost of any redundancies would come from the existing councils budgets that
would no longer exist on 1 April 2019.
It was also noted that the Structural Change Order set out the position
with regard to the redundancy of existing chief executives
·
In response to a comment about increasing the size of the Chief Executive
Appointment Panel from 8 to 9 members, the Interim Monitoring Officer indicated
that he would be troubled by that as the panel was half way through the process
and it would not be appropriate to introduce a new person at this stage. It was noted that this advice must be
accepted
·
A comment was noted that the public perception needed to come second to
the professional HR and Legal advice that had been received for a technical
exercise. The sole focus must be on
appointing the best candidate
·
In response to a concern raised, it was noted that it was standard
practice to offer a salary range which would depend on the job and level of
experience that a person was bringing into a role
It
was proposed by J Sewell seconded by B Goringe that any
Senior Appointments Committee / Panel established for the purpose of
undertaking the selection process for the recruitment of senior officers (below
Chief Executive/Tier 1) is constituted with 9 members rather than 8.
A
comment was made that as arrangements for future processes had not yet been
agreed, it would be clearer to state that any future appointments committee or
panel was constituted with an odd number of members, rather than stating a
specific number at this stage. The
original proposer and seconder of the motion agreed with this approach and
change of wording.
Recommendation to the
Shadow Executive Committee
That
any Senior Appointments Committee / Panel established for the purpose of
undertaking the selection process for the recruitment of senior officers (below
Chief Executive/Tier 1) is constituted with an odd number of members.
(Two member abstentions).