Leader of the Council
Minutes:
The Chairman welcomed Michelle Kirk, Director, East of England Local Government Association Government Association and Suzanne Hughes, Head of HR and OD to the meeting.
Councillor Ward introduced the report and informed Council that some Councillors had informed him that they believed that the report had been rushed so he intended to present a brief chronology by way of introduction.
Senior salaries were last reviewed ten years ago in 2011 when Babergh first started working jointly with Mid Suffolk. The levels that were set then have stood the test of time.
It was highlighted in the risk section of the Pay Policy Statement that was debated in March 2021, where it was recognised that senior salaries had fallen behind the market. No changes were proposed at that time.
Despite not having to carry out senior officer recruitment to the Senior Leadership Team in the previous two years, officers were hopeful that they could still successfully recruit to the newly formed Assistant Director for Communities and Wellbeing post within the existing pay structures. Despite extensive marketing and strong interest in the four-way shared role, it became very clear when discussing the role with candidates, many did not consider the salary level competitive or appropriate compared to similar or existing roles. Fourteen people applied, none of which were considered to have the necessary experience to undertake the role.
Based upon this feedback, EELGA were commissioned to undertake an independent review on senior leadership pay in order to determine the extent of which the Council’s pay scales were uncompetitive. Finally, Councillor Ward referred to 5.2 of the report which drew directly from the Pay Policy Statement.
Councillor Ward then MOVED the recommendations in the report which Councillor Arthey SECONDED.
Michelle Kirk, Director of EELGA delivered a short presentation on the content of her report.
Councillor Melanie Barrett asked whether the Director of EELGA had been asked to give an opinion on the job design and job description or on providing a different approach or was the commissioned report based on one unfilled vacancy.
In response, the Director of EELGA informed Council that she was not asked to look at the job description but the overall job package. The package was configured correctly but the offer was too low.
Councillor Melanie Barrett sought confirmation that the figures were based on the current year and asked how many increments members of staff could progress to if they had met all of their targets?
In response, the Head of HR and OD confirmed that staff could only progress one increment point per year. Staff would start on the nearest point to their salary and progress one increment a year until they reach the top of the scale subject to them reaching their performance targets. The EELGA recommendations were based on staff naturally progressing through the incremental points.
Councillor Melanie Barrett asked why the scales had been reduced to only three incremental points rather than five.
In response, the Director for EELGA stated that five years was now very unusual for progression scales. It was assumed that staff would start at the lowest point of the scale and would as they developed into the role, naturally progress over a three-year period. A five-year period indirectly discriminated against women as they were more likely to have shorter time in the workplace compared to men.
Councillor Melanie Barrett asked if a market supplement could be applied to address the issue of attracting candidates to the post of Assistant Director of Wellbeing and Communities.
In response, the Head of HR and OD stated that when asked, candidates had indicated that the post was being advertised at least £50k below the salary indicative for this post. A market forces supplement could be applied to the post, but this would only be in place for two years before being reviewed and could be taken away at any point. This would also not address the long-term problem of the salary levels being too low.
Councillor Hinton asked what the impact would be on the rest of the work force if the cap was removed from the top salaries and what comparisons had been taken with other Councils outside of Suffolk.
In response, the Head of HR and OD stated that individual salaries on the lower scales could be reviewed at any time and individuals could move from one band to another if their job warranted an increase in salary whereas at the top of the scale there was no flexibility to be able to do this.
The Director for EELGA informed Council that benchmarking comparisons had been made with all 39 Councils in the East of England, the three examples used were the Councils’ most comparable Councils. The salary levels that were currently been paid were far lower and the Council was vulnerable to having their staff head hunted.
Councillor Lindsay asked if the salaries for the rest of the work force would need to be reviewed?
In response, the Head of HR and OD stated that she could not ever rule out a review of all salaries due to the environment we were currently working in and the vulnerability to the private sector. Whilst the public sector did have a good pension scheme, the private sector were able to offer large bonuses, car allowances, private health care and other benefits. The Council did have various different bands and staff could move up these bands. The Council hasn’t looked at senior pay scales since 2011 but other salaries have been regularly reviewed.
Councillor Davis sought clarification on the number of current vacancies at senior management level.
In response, the Head of HR and OD confirmed that there were currently two vacancies although the Assistant Director for Wellbeing and Communities had been filled on an interim basis. This position was funded on a four-way basis with partners.
Councillor Ayres asked what the equivalent salary would be if the post was based in Greater London, Kent or Susses and whether the Council offered a re location package for staff that would be willing to move here?
In response, the Director from EELGA said that the configuration for London Councils was completely different and whilst attracted a lot higher salaries, the jobs were not comparable.
The Head of HR and OD confirmed that the Council did have a relocation policy which offered payments for relocation, this was currently being reviewed as people were able to work more flexibly from a distance.
Councillor Beer asked about the challenges that were detailed in the slides and said that he expected to be undertaking those challenges already and also asked if the Council should be undertaking efficiency savings first before suggesting pay increases.
In response, the Head of HR and OD clarified that the challenges detailed in the slides were the priorities that Members had identified going forward. Currently the Council did not have all of the skill set to be able to deliver these and they would not be able to be delivered if the Council could not attract staff and retain them at a senior level. The situation that the Council was currently in was that it had two vacancies at senior level that could not be filled, and any efficiency savings could not be realised until we have those staff in place.
On the proposal of Councillor Busby and seconded by Councillor McCraw it was MOVED that the meeting be extended to allow all business to be conducted.
This was PUT to the meeting and CARRIED.
It was RESOLVED:-
That the meeting be extended to allow all business to be conducted.
Councillor Maybury queried whether the salary points in the recommendations included oncosts?
In response, the Head of HR and OD confirmed that the recommendations did not include oncosts. The details of the financials were included in the slides. The full cost was £47,856.00 which included pensions and national insurance.
Councillor Parker sought clarification on how a low paid Chief Executive depresses the wages of directors and also asked about the report that was mentioned in page 271 of the report which referred to a recent survey undertaken by EELGA on salary levels 1 to 4 and why it was not included as a background paper?
In response, the Director for EELGA informed Councillor Parker that she would be happy to share the whole report. Councillors did have in front of them the pertinent parts of the report which compared like for like salaries.
Councillor Carpendale asked about the impact and cost implications on the whole of the organisation bearing in mind that there was a salary multiplier in place?
Councillor Cresswell recognised that there had not been a pay review since 2011 but queried whether there had been an annual percentage rise for the Senior Leadership Team?
In response, the Head of HR and OD confirmed that all staff had a NJC negotiated pay rise every year but the pay scales and pay spine for the Senior Leadership Team had not been reviewed since 2011. The Chief Executive’s pay had been reviewed when he came into post.
Councillor McCraw referred to pages 64 to 67 of the report and sought clarification that if the multipliers that were currently set up changed, would the Pay Policy need to be amended?
In response, the Head of HR and OD confirmed that the Pay Policy Statement would need to be amended.
Councillor Fraser asked what the increase was in percentage terms?
In response, the Head of HR and OD stated that it would depend on individual salaries but could potentially be looking at a percentage increase of 10%.
Councillor Melanie Barrett raised concerns about the figures quoted in the report and sought clarity on what the cost would be for the Council in four years’ time.
Councillor Simon Barrett stated that the Council had difficulty to recruiting other jobs including planning officers and felt that the whole process should be included as part of the budgetary process.
Councillor McCraw emphasised that this was an independent report produced from EELGA and had been benchmarked against similar Councils. The risks were high for the Council if their recommendations were not carried out. One interim will cost more than a Chief Executive. Councillor McCraw felt that if we did not do this now, we will have to do it sooner or later and in the meantime the Council could lose a lot of senior staff.
Councillor Arthey asked what would happen if Babergh and Mid Suffolk came to different decisions?
In response, the Chief Executive (who had been called back into the meeting to answer the question) stated that he did not have a definitive answer at this time but it would leave both Councils in a very difficult position with a joint workforce currently on single pay scales.
Councillor Maybury was concerned about the perception from residents as she felt that as a Council, the proposals to spend more money on salaries was being done at the wrong time.
Councillor Davis felt that officers deserved as much money as they could get but was worried about the gap between the highest and the lowest paid and the perception of residents.
Councillor Lindsay stated that the ratio of the top paid to the lowest paid would mean that the Pay Policy would need to be changed to accommodate an out of proportion pay rise that would see a huge increase for people who were already some of the highest paid in the district, he was concerned about the effect of this on the moral of lower paid staff and would like to see a pay review at all levels.
Councillor Beer felt that it was morally wrong to suggest such a high increase to already highly paid staff at a time when parking charges have been introduced and council tax increased.
At the proposal of Councillor Beer and supported by four other Councillors, a request for a recorded vote was submitted.
Councillor Busby stated that it was a case of supply and demand and that when the Council ran out of staff and don’t have the senior staff to deliver our objectives it would run into a lot of trouble. Councillor Busby also agreed with Councillor Lindsay that all the pay scales needed to be reviewed and asked what could be done about increasing supply through training and development.
Councillor Melanie Barrett felt that the Council should not be scared if Assistant Directors decided to move on as it would encourage more junior staff to be promoted.
In his summing up, Councillor Ward clarified the figures in the presentation and confirmed that they illustrated the costs over a period of four years and that 9.6 clearly stated the figures including oncosts.
Councillor Ward said that he understood Members concerns about the figures being large, but this was because the matter had not been addressed over a number of years. Residents he knew, also shared the concerns of Members but he felt that they would be concerned more when the Council started to be unable to deliver services because of a lack of good staff.
Councillor Ward informed Council that the Council was currently struggling to fill all jobs but particularly senior jobs. He referred to the market economy of supply and demand and this was hitting the Council particularly hard. It would cost the Council more if it had to rely on interims to cover the vacancies and would blow the budget out of the window.
The recommendations were PUT to the Council and were LOST
FOR |
AGAINST |
ABSTAIN |
Cllr C Arthey |
Cllr S Ayres |
Cllr D Busby |
Cllr S Carpendale |
Cllr M Barrett |
|
Cllr B Hurren |
Cllr S Barrett |
|
Cllr E Malvisi |
Cllr P Beer |
|
Cllr A McCraw |
Cllr T Cresswell |
|
Cllr A Osborne |
Cllr D Davis |
|
Cllr J Osborne |
Cllr M Fraser |
|
Cllr J Ward |
Cllr R Hardacre |
|
|
Cllr J Hinton |
|
|
Cllr L Jamieson |
|
|
Cllr R Lindsay |
|
|
Cllr M Maybury |
|
|
Cllr Z Norman |
|
|
Cllr J Nunn |
|
|
Cllr A Owen |
|
|
Cllr L Parker |
|
|
Cllr S Plumb |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total 8 |
Total 17 |
Total 1 |
Supporting documents: