Minutes:
Prior to introducing the report, the Committee extended a warm welcome to Jaki Salisbury, Consultant, who in turn outlined her previous experience and the previous work she had undertaken on behalf of the Authority.
In June, Members had received a report outlining proposals for a two Executive Director model and agreed interim arrangements to cover for the retirement of the Executive Director of Operations with the permanent appointment of an Assistant Director of Planning and Regeneration.
Members had indicated a willingness to consider options but reflected that the current three director model had been working well from their perspective.
The Head of Paid Service and Executive Director of Commercial and Economic Growth had agreed to undertake a review of services under management and provide an interim report to the Committee in October.
A final report would be provided in March 2020 following the Peer Challenge in January 2020.
Members, therefore, considered the interim report which had been prepared and which detailed the review of services and the organisational analysis which had been undertaken. Arising from which, six key areas had been identified and three possible structure options.
The Executive Directors answered a number of questions from the Committee, particularly in respect of the costs of the preferred option and reporting lines. Assurance was also sought that any structure would be flexible enough to accommodate emerging issues.
The Executive Directors took the opportunity to share with the Committee their experience of working in a three Executive Director model and some of the challenges such an arrangement brought about.
The Executive Directors and the Senior Democratic Officer left the meeting at 5.32 to allow Members to discuss openly and frankly the proposals.
During the debate, Members considered in detail the three options presented within the report and in light of the comments, made also added a fourth option - that of a sustainable model with a Chief Executive.
There was full debate around all the various options, but mainly option two and option four. There was also full discussion about an internal versus an external recruitment process.
It was also discussed that a question at interview could be to ask about the preferred senior structure.
A majority of Members agreed that the fourth option was their preferred model and that it should ideally be filled by internal recruitment.
Members agreed that further consideration be given to the fourth option and that this should be brought back to a future Chief Officer Employment Committee meeting. A timeline would also be expected at that meeting.
The Senior Democratic Services Officer returned to the meeting at 6.40pm.
Having being proposed and seconded it was RESOLVED that: -
(a) having considered the detail within the paper, and having reflected on the options set out within the report, a fourth option be considered and brought back to a further meeting of the Chief Officer Employment Committee, this being a sustainable model with a Chief Executive;
(b) Furthermore, in the event that option four is ultimately the preferred model any recruitment to such a role should, in the first instance, be recruited internally; and
(c) the Chair and Vice-Chairman of the Chief Officer Employment Committee, in conjunction with the Executive Directors, be granted delegated authority to bring forward final proposals and resolve any issues arising from the preferred option.