Agenda item

To consider the report of the Head of Organisational Development.

The report of the Head of Organisational Development was submitted for consideration.

In the absence of the Chair of the Democratic Services Committee, the Vice-Chair advised that the Democratic Services Committee had considered and agreed both reports and proposed that Item Nos. 41 and 42 be approved simultaneously.

A Member referred to a previous meeting of the Council held in May whereby she had asked the Leader about the case whereby a Member had been appointed to two paid positions and said at that time the Leader had denied knowledge of this case.  The Member concluded by asking whether these monies had now been repaid to the Council as paragraphs 2.3 and 2.6 of the Schedule of Members Remuneration indicated that only one senior salary was payable to a Member of the authority.

The Leader of the Council on a point of correction advised that the Member had misinterpreted his comments and clarified that he had not denied knowledge but had said at that time that he was genuinely not aware of the case.  However, he had subsequently been made aware of the area referred to and confirmed that the additional allowance which was being paid to a Chair who was in receipt of a special responsibility allowance, was permissible within the regulations.

The Member said that she found that this was confusing and contradictory to the information contained in the Schedule of Members Remuneration, specifically paragraphs 2.3 and 2.6 i.e.  that only one senior salary was payable to a member of the authority and concluded by stating that whilst the Leader indicated that he had been unaware of the case, this could be taken that he was denying knowledge of it.

The Leader of the Council raised a point of order and stated that being ‘unaware’ and ‘denying’ were grammatically two different things and could be interpreted differently.  He affirmed that he had been unaware of the case and this had was a genuine comment made at that time.  However, he had been subsequently assured by both the Monitoring Officer and the Chief Officer Resources that a Member in receipt of a Committee Chair Band 3 (the level that Scrutiny Committee Chairs were paid) could be in receipt of a salary from another organisation.

The Leader of the Labour Group said that he was under the assumption that it was the Leader who made the appointments to these external positions and said it was important that there was transparency, particularly for the public regarding senior responsibility allowances.

The Leader of the Council advised that he was content to go on record that he had recommended that the individual in question be appointed to that particular body because of his experience and knowledge.  The organisation in question was a crucial partner and he believed the Member was the best individual to undertake this role.  It was pointed out that this appointment had been wholly endorsed by his colleagues and endorsed when the Committee structure and outside bodies were approved by Full Council.

The Leader of the Labour Group said whether the individual was the best person for the role was not the issue, the issue was that the individual was in receipt of two salaries and if the Leader had recommended that the individual be appointed to the post, then he had been aware of the situation and said he should apologise to his colleague for stating that he had been unaware.  He concluded by stating that the public had a right and deserved to know what was happening in the Council. 

The Leader of the Council said that in this instance he did not feel he needed to apologise because when he had made the comments at the time, he could not genuinely recall the case and had to be prompted by officers.  He stated that his comments at that point in time were honest and truthful and for that honesty and truthfulness he made no apology and said that he also made no apology for the decision taken to appoint the individual to perform that particular role.

It was unanimously,

RESOLVED that the report be accepted and Option 1 be endorsed, namely, the Schedule of Members Remuneration for 2021/22 be agreed and published.