Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Lillywhite. In the absence of the Chair, Councillor Jacky Fletcher took the Chair.

Councillor Colin Hay declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 4 as a trustee of the Cheltenham Leisure and Culture Trust and would not be present for the debate on this item. He also declared a personal interest in Agenda item 6 as a Trustee on the Gloucestershire Pensions Committee.

The Chief Executive explained that he had a potential interest in Agenda item 5 the “Hay Review” but he asked Members to permit him to provide some context for this item before leaving the meeting.

7 April 2014

The minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2014 were signed and approved as a correct record.

Verbal update from the Chief Executive

The Chief Executive introduced this item and explained that he had briefed the Chair and the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles on this issue prior to the meeting. He then informed Members that earlier in the year the Leisure and Culture Trust, now known as the “Cheltenham Trust” had embarked on recruiting a Chief Executive. It had been widely expected that the existing Director Wellbeing and Culture would apply for the position but for personal reasons had decided not to. As a result of the recruitment process, in which the Chief Executive of CBC and the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles were involved, a preferred candidate was chosen. Subsequent to this the Chief Executive had been discussing with the Trust its concerns with regard to the lack of security of the preferred candidate should the Trust not be vested in October as planned. The Chief Executive reported that his suggested approach would be for the Council to inherit the employment arrangements of this candidate should the Trust not be vested in October. As he did not have authority to make this decision and it was vital to confirm the appointment it was decided to seek the approval of this committee to employ the candidate should the Trust not be vested. Further to a decision by this committee the Trust could then send an offer letter to the candidate explaining that in the very unlikely event that the Trust project fails the candidate could be assured of a position with the Council.

When asked to comment the Cabinet Member Healthy Lifestyles regretted  that the position had not been advertised later to avert this situation but the decision to recruit was made by the Trust, and the consequences of not taking this approach now risked losing the preferred candidate meaning the position would have to be re-advertised.

Members discussed the issue. As a point of clarification the Chief Executive explained that the only reason the Council would be involved was if the Trust was not vested in October as planned, but there would still be a need to manage those services. When asked who was undertaking the role at the current time the Chief Executive said the post was vacant as the former Director had been seconded to Ubico. However in the interim he was providing line management to the executive team and RPT consultants were also involved. When asked whether a saving was being made the Chief Executive said it was in one sense but there were project costs elsewhere that needed to be covered which meant that the funding position would be balanced out. He very much hoped that the Trust would be vested as planned and that the scenario outlined regarding Cheltenham needing to be the employer did not occur.

RESOLVED that

the Council inherit the employment arrangements of the preferred candidate should the Leisure and Culture Trust not be vested in October

Report of the Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The Chief Executive introduced the report and explained that senior management salaries were last fully reviewed in 2008 and since then there had been two senior management restructures. The recent senior management review led to changes to the portfolios of senior managers. However with the number of changes that have taken place since then it was now deemed to be appropriate to carry out an exercise to check that salary levels remained appropriate and continued to fairly reflect levels of responsibility and that the senior management grading structure continued to serve the Council effectively.

The Chief Executive explained that the review concentrated on 4 senior management posts with the Director Commissioning role not being included due to the retirement of the postholder at the end of October. Of the 4 posts two of the current postholders had approached the Chief Executive requesting a regrade as they believed their jobs had changed considerably and now incorporated additional responsibility. The Chief Executive highlighted that a regrading of posts did come with a degree of risk, for example any recommendation to increase salary had not been budgeted for and should a decrease in salary be recommended there could be discontentment among postholders. That being said, the Chief Executive emphasised that the request was reasonable and all employees had the contractual right to request a pay review. It was the Chief Executive’s view that responding to the requests by taking an independent look at salaries was reasonable in the circumstances.

Having declared a potential interest the Chief Executive left the meeting.

In response to a question the Head of Human Resources clarified that the current number of employees of the Council was around 340 compared to 660 in 2008. She explained that this number would further reduce to around 220 by 1 October 2014 due to the transfer to The Cheltenham Trust. She then explained that Paul Hancock from Hay would be meeting individually with the postholders to talk through their job and portfolios, job descriptions and person specs.

A member expressed her concern that one year ago the committee was told that these senior management posts were not significantly different and therefore would not be regraded. Postholders had received mentoring and coaching to facilitate their “slotting in” to the new roles at a cost to the council. However a year later these jobs were now being subject to a HAY review. She asked why, at the time of the restructure, the Committee was not told that those concerned had the right to request this. Other members regretted that at the time of last year’s restructure the risk that senior managers would request a review was not highlighted to members or put on the risk register. It was suggested that officers should look at what was said by the committee at the time including the reassurances given by the relevant directors.

In response the Head of Human Resources referred to the “slotting” process which had occurred last year and explained that at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Report of the Cabinet Member Corporate Services

The Head of Human Resources introduced the report and explained that the pension regulations were amended in April 2014 changing it to a career average related earnings scheme with discretions available to the Employer under a number of provisions.  She explained that in accordance with Regulation 60 of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013 the Council must prepare a written statement of its policy in relation to the exercise of its discretion under a number of provisions of the Regulations. These included the funding of additional pension, flexible retirement, waiving of actuarial reduction and award of additional pension. In addition the Council has also prepared a written statement on whether, in respect of benefits relating to pre 1^st April 2014 membership, to “switch on” the 85 year rule for a member who voluntarily retires and elects to draw their benefits on or after the age of 55 and before the age of 60 thereby agreeing to waive in full or part any actuarial reduction applied to the members’ benefits.

The Head of Human Resources highlighted that the additional pension would not be awarded and this was consistent with the approach across the GOSS partners, and would not award additional pension contributions. Flexible retirement would be considered on a case by case basis. The 85 year rule would be “switched on” where there was a sound business case. This was consistent with the GOSS partners and met business needs.

When asked how these rules affected those employees who had been transferred to another body in terms of where the residual liability lay the Head of Human Resources confirmed that this would be factored in to the actuarial assessment at the time of transfer. There would therefore be no additional liability on the council.

In response to a question the Head of Human Resources clarified that the decision to switch on the 85 year rule and flexible retirement would only be taken if there was a business case of benefit to the employer and this was for officers to decide, the Appointments and Remuneration Committee were responsible for approving policy. The process would be audited by the Council’s auditors to ensure that the rules were adhered to.

RESOLVED

That the LGPS Pension Discretions Policy be agreed and adopted and forwarded to the Gloucestershire County Council pensions department

Monday 15 September 2014

15 September 2015