Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed those present and introductions were made.

None

None declared.

The Minutes of the following meetings were confirmed as a correct record -

a) 3 August 2017;

b) 25 August 2017;

c) 28 September 2017.

Up to 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Any member of the public or councillor may participate in Public Forum.  The detailed arrangements for so doing are set out in the Public Information Sheet at the back of this agenda.  Please note that the following deadlines will apply in relation to this meeting:-

Questions - Written questions must be received 3 clear working days prior to the meeting.  For this meeting, this means that your question(s) must be received in this office at the latest by5 pm on 13 October 2017.

Petitions and Statements - Petitions and statements must be received on the working day prior to the meeting.  For this meeting this means that your submission must be received in this office at the latest by 12.00 noon on 18 October 2017.

The Committee noted the following statements:

The Committee noted the questions submitted by Councillor Tim Kent & Alderman Mike Wollacott and the associated answers:

The statements and the questions/answers can be accessed via Democratic Services at democratic.services@bristol.gov.uk

Supplementary questions from Councillor Tim Kent:

1)      Confusion about the CX appointment process, regarding the appointment being made on 20 February 2017 but an article about the appointment welcoming the new CX had been published on 19 February 2017;

Reply – The initial appointment committee was held on 16^th January 2017 and was reconvened on 20^th February 2017 to ratify procedural aspects relating to the appointment [after-note: a further meeting of the committee was held on 13^th February 2017 to discuss the appointment];

2)      Can there be an audit of the appointment process so that this sort of confusion did not arise again in future?

Reply – This is not required because full Council approved the recommendation of the Selection Committee to make the appointment;

3)      Was the pay in lieu of notice part of a negotiated settlement?

Reply – This was not necessary;

4)      Was external legal advice sought in respect of the CX departure early from the contract and was the decision made in accordance with the City Council’s Pay Policy?

Reply – yes. The decision was made in line with the contract of employment and external legal advice;

5)      Was the Chair concerned that pay in lieu of notice of around £90k had been paid to the former CX when there had not been an obligation to do?

Reply – The decision was made in line with the contract of employment and external legal advice;

6)      The former CX had been employed for 7 months and one week but was paid £160k would the Chair agree that this was a ‘shocking amount’?

Reply – The situation was not ideal.

Regarding statement S2 - review of the pay line from BG1 to BG15.  A meeting between the Employer and Trade Unions had been positive and a draft replacement Green Book pay spine had been discussed. Delays in the process were attributed to national level discussions within the National Joint Council for Local Government Services. Whilst the outcome of the national work is awaited a local version was being pursued pending the outcome of the national situation.  It was not impossible that some changes could take place from 1 April 2018, but this was subject to negotiation.

No items were raised.

To note the work programme.

The Work Programme was noted subject to an update report about performance management being brought to the HR Committee meeting on 30 November 2017, this would include reference to the Council’s Corporate Plan.

The Committee received a presentation regarding the proposals to change the Council’s Management Structure, the proposed structure was subject to further consultation and feedback.

Key features of the proposed structure which was currently in a process of formal consultation with those colleagues in scope of the changes and comments made included:

1. The proposed structure did not include a Chief Executive post;

2. The Head of Paid Service role – it was proposed to allocate this in the new structure to the Group Director: Resources;

3. Accountabilities of Heads of Service would not change at the current time;

4. Statutory officer accountabilities would be at Director level, except the post with Head of Paid Service responsibilities;

5. Group Directors would have a wide remit;

6. It is proposed that the Director of Public Health and Director for Adult Social Services would be merged into one post;

7. In answer to comments from Members, the Committee was informed that the proposed structure had been brought to the HR Committee for information, not formal consultation, as the management structure was the responsibility of the Head of Paid Service;

8. Recruitment of first and second tier officers would continue to be challenged but it was felt that Bristol was a good location to work and would attract suitable candidates;

9. Internal candidates in scope would have an opportunity to apply for the new posts prior to external advertising, this part of the process was hoped to be completed by the end of the year;

10. The presentation details and draft role profiles of the proposed jobs would be circulated to HR Committee members in the next couple of weeks;

11. The shape of the structure was not totally fixed which suggested that some of the responsibilities for certain group directors might be moved.

The Committee received a presentation regarding the proposed Values and Leadership framework for the Council.

It was anticipated that the values would be further tested and refined. Following this, creative methods would be utilised to embed these to change and improve the work culture.

The Committee welcomed the Framework and strongly emphasised the need for this to be followed through proactively to avoid the possibility of it losing momentum and becoming a ‘box-ticking’ exercise. The pursuit of excellence whilst not specifically stated should be a fundamental principle of the Leadership Framework.

The Committee received a report, including an independent review of pay by Korn Ferry Hay Group, about the requirement under the Localism Act 2011 for local authorities to agree and publish a pay policy statement annually before the start of the financial year to which the statement relates. Any amendments made must also be approved by full Council.

Members were informed that –

1. A new management structure was being proposed to meet the requirement agreed by full Council in February 2017 to reduce costs by £600k in 2017/18 and by a further £1m in 2018/19;
2. An independent review of pay by Korn Ferry Hay Group had been commissioned in order to ensure that jobs at the top 3 levels of the organisation were sufficiently competitive to recruit and retain effective leaders and managers;
3. The evidence/advice from Korn Ferry Hay Group suggested that amendments to the Council’s Pay Policy Statement were needed and some policy questions needed to be determined.

The Committee was asked to determine a number of pay policy questions identified in the Korn Ferry Hay Group review as follows:

1.      The level at which pay was set in relation to the market;

2.      Whether to use pay ranges or spot salaries;

3.      If pay ranges were used, how individuals would be placed and progressed within the range;

4.      In relation to job size, whether to use narrow or broader ranges;

5.      Whether to introduce a level of variable pay as part of the overall salary package and if so at what level eg, 5%. 10% or 20%.

Some Members felt that it was not appropriate to decide on this without a formal recommendation or further options being explored.

In particular, a member made the following comments:

1. The new management structure and associated job descriptions and pay recommendations had been proposed by the former Chief Executive so it appeared unclear how the structure would operate with the Chief Executive post now removed from the structure. The Interim Service Director HR commented that there had been further developments since the Chief Executive’s departure so that, now, the proposals were different from that originally proposed;

2. At a time of budget and staff reductions it was inappropriate to be considering such high pay increases for senior staff;

3. Performance Management of senior staff was not functioning effectively and until this was adequately addressed increasing pay incentives for senior staff was not appropriate;

4. Allowing the HR Committee to consider whether the pay ascribed to a post was inadequate and potentially increasing it by 20%, as originally recommended by the external consultants, could lead to a delay in filling important posts.

Councillor Jo Sergeant left the meeting at this point of the proceedings (11.44 am)

After further discussion and giving full and lengthy consideration to the options available the Chair moved an amendment to the Pay Policy, which was duly seconded by Councillor Wellington, to allow the Selection Committee to appoint up to 10% above than the proposed minimum of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The Committee received a reportseeking its views and endorsement of the proposed changes to the Council’s Constitution in respect of HR matters relating to chief officers and deputy chief officers.

The Committee was informed that –

1. There had been a number of constitutional changes to full Council in recent times and there was a need to undertake some tidying-up;
2. There were some procedural issues with the current constitution and the proposed amendments sought to address these;
3. It was proposed to merge the HR Committee with the Selection Committee to form a new Employment & Remuneration Committee;
4. It was proposed that a member of the Executive become a permanent member of the Employment and Remuneration Committee;
5. There was no proposal to remove the provision for any employee to have their appeal against dismissal heard by members of the Appeals Committee;
6. The current political composition of full Council required selection panels to be made up of 7 members so that all political groups were represented. Members’ views were sought about the feasibility of moving to 5 or 3-member selection panels for certain chief officer/deputy chief officer appointments.

The Committee focused its attention on the changes to the Constitution relating to HR Terms of Reference and Officer Employment Procedure Rules.

It was noted that in relation to the proposed Employment & Remuneration Committee the Executive Member would be an ex officio member and would count for quorum purposes but would not have voting rights as the Committee would be a non-executive function.

The Committee welcomed the proposals emphasising the retention of a seven member selection panels and the inclusion of an Executive Member to sit as an ex-officio member on the proposed Employment & Remuneration Committee.

Resolved –

That the proposed changes to the Constitution in respect of HR matters be endorsed

specifically –

a)      the HR Committee with the Selection Committee being merged to form a new Employment & Remuneration Committee;

b)     an executive member being made an ex-officio member of the new Employment & Remuneration Committee, noting that the position would not have voting rights;

c)      The retention of up to seven member selection panels to ensure that all political groups were represented.

The Committee received a report detailing an update and further information on the Council’s use of agency staff and interim managers and consultants.

Resolved – that the report be noted

The information was noted.

The exempt Minutes of the following meetings were confirmed as a correct record -

a) 25 August 2017;

b) 28 September 2017 (approval deferred for amendment).

Meeting ended at 12.50 pm

CHAIR  __________________