Agenda and minutes

Staffing Sub Committee
Tuesday, 24th July, 2012 10.30 am

Venue: Executive Meeting Room 2 - Town Hall, Macclesfield SK10 1EA. View directions

Items
No. Item

1.

Apologies for Absence

Minutes:

There were no apologies for absence.

 

2.

Appointment of Chairman and Chairman's Opening Remarks

Minutes:

The Council’s Democratic and Registration Services Manager sought nominations for the office of Chairman of the Sub Committee, and it was

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Councillor Howard Murray be appointed as Chairman of the Staffing Sub Committee

 

 

Councillor Murray took the chair and made opening remarks as to the nature of the business of the meeting and the way in which the meeting would be conducted.  The Chairman referred to the outcomes which might flow from the review of the conduct of staff involved in the Council’s proposals to build a waste transfer station at Lyme Green Depot.

 

Visiting Councillors were welcomed to the meeting and an explanation was provided by the Chairman of the information which would be provided to all present as part of Part I of the Sub-Committee’s agenda.  A summary of the proposed business which was proposed to be dealt with in Part II of the agenda was provided to the meeting. 

 

 

 

 

 

3.

Declarations of Interest

To provide an opportunity for Members and Officers to declare any disclosable pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests in any item on the agenda.

Minutes:

The Chairman provided an opportunity to members of the Sub-Committee, and to officers, to declare any pecuniary or non-pecuniary interests, which arose from the proposed business of the meeting.

Councillor David Newton indicated to the meeting that he knew Mr B Tunnicliffe as a personal friend but that this friendship did not result in him having any disclosable interest.

 

4.

Presentation from the Head of HR and Organisational Development

To provide an opportunity for the Head of HR and Organisational Development to explain the purpose of the meeting.

Minutes:

On behalf of the Head of HR and Organisational Development, Mel Henniker, HR Delivery Manager, explained the purpose of the meeting and the proposed procedure to be adopted.  Ms Henniker summarised for the meeting, the paperwork which had been included with the agenda papers.  Reference was also made to the written submissions which had been made by officers in question, who were subject to the day’s proceedings.

 

Each officer would individually be invited to make their submissions to the meeting, following which such questions which were necessary for the purposes of clarification only would be asked by members of the Sub-Committee.  Where any of the officers were accompanied by advisors, their advisors would be entitled to attend this part of the proceedings and to contribute as necessary.

 

The officer presentations would be conducted individually and those officers not making their presentation at that time would retire to their own meeting room.

 

After all presentations had been made, the Sub-Committee would consider all submissions in detail in order to determine:

 

a.                  Whether the allegations in question required no further formal action to be taken; or

b.                  Whether those allegations should be referred to a Designated Independent Person (DIP).

 

If the Sub Committee decided to refer any of the officers to a DIP, the Sub-Committee would also:

a.                  Decide whether suspension or alternative steps would be appropriate;

b.                  Seek to appoint such a DIP.

 

Following Ms Henniker’s presentation, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee asked those present at the meeting whether they had any questions about the proposed process.  There were no questions.

 

The Chairman asked the officers concerned and their advisors: whether they understood the allegations and the proposed process, and whether they had received sufficient notice of the meeting and proposed proceedings.  It was confirmed by those present that they understood the allegations and the process, and also that they were content with the notice given in respect of the meeting and proceedings.

 

 

 

5.

Public Speaking Time/Open Session

In accordance with Procedure Rules Nos.11 and 35 a period of 10 minutes is allocated for members of the public to address the meeting on any matter relevant to the work of the meeting. Individual members of the public may speak for up to 5 minutes but the Chairman or person presiding will decide how the period of time allocated for public speaking will be apportioned where there are a number of speakers. Members of the public are not required to give notice to use this facility. However, as a matter of courtesy, a period of 24 hours’ notice is encouraged.

 

Members of the public wishing to ask a question at the meeting should provide at least three clear working days’ notice in writing and should include the question with that notice. This will enable an informed answer to be given.

 

 

Minutes:

No members of the public were present at the meeting.

 

Visiting Members of the Council were invited by the Chairman to speak if they wished to do so.

 

Councillor Brendan Murphy said that, at the last meeting of the Staffing Committee, he had raised a question about any involvement of the former Chief Executive in these proceedings.  He was disappointed to see that this would not be the case and raised concerns about the lack of involvement of the former Chief Executive, which he described as being “precarious to the Council”.

 

6.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

The reports relating to the remaining items on the agenda have been withheld from public circulation and deposit pursuant to Section 100(B)(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that the matters may be determined with the press and public excluded.

 

The Committee may decide that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following items pursuant to Section 100(A)4 of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 as amended and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.

 

 

 

 

Minutes:

Pursuant to Section 100B (2) of the Local Government Act 1972, the reports relating to the remaining items on the agenda had been withheld from public circulation and deposit on the grounds that the matters may be determined with the public and press excluded.

 

It was moved and seconded, pursuant to Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 that the public and press be excluded from the remaining items of the Sub-Committee’s business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Par 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, and that the public interest would not be served in publishing the information and it was

 

RESOLVED

 

That the press and public be excluded from the remainder of the meeting for the reasons given.

 

7.

Review of Staff Conduct in relation to Lyme Green

To review the conduct of staff involved in the Council’s proposals to build a waste transfer station at Lyme Green Depot.

 

Minutes:

At the request of the Chairman, Ms Henniker explained the process which would be adopted during this item of business for the Sub-Committee.  She informed the meeting of the paperwork which had been circulated to those present.

 

She added that, at the conclusion of the process which had been explained as part of Item 4 of the agenda, each officer would be individually called into the meeting in turn in order for the Chairman to advise them of the decisions of the Sub-Committee and should the decision be taken that one or more allegations should be referred to a DIP, they would be asked to confirm whether or not they objected to the preferred DIP.

 

Should a decision be taken to suspend any of the officers in question, or to take any alternative steps, that officer would be recalled in order to be given an opportunity to respond.  There would then be a further adjournment, during which the Sub-Committee would consider the submissions made.

 

The officer would then be recalled and advised of the Sub-Committee’s final decision.

 

If a decision was made to proceed with suspension, the Chairman of the Sub-Committee would announce the terms of suspension.

 

Discussion would take place on the proposed appointment of a DIP with a view to securing agreement amongst the officers concerned as to such appointment.

 

Ms Henniker set out in detail each of the allegations which would form the basis of the business of this item of the Sub-Committee’s agenda.

In accordance with the detailed procedure which was explained as part of Item 4 of the agenda, the officers would be invited to make submissions to the Sub-Committee.

 

In turn, the officers concerned were individually invited to address the meeting.

 

Each officer was asked to make their submissions to the meeting.  This was followed by questions from the members of the Sub-Committee where this was necessary for the purposes of clarification only.  Where any of the officers were accompanied by advisors, their advisors were entitled to attend this part of the proceedings and to contribute as they wished.  Whilst each of the officers made their presentations, the other officers withdrew from the meeting.

 

After all presentations had been made, the Sub-Committee considered all submissions in detail with a view to determining:

a.                  Whether the allegations in question required no further formal action to be taken;

b.                  Whether those allegations should be referred to a Designated Independent Person (DIP);

c.                  Whether suspension or alternative steps were appropriate.

 

RESOLVED

 

Following full consideration of the written and oral submissions of the officers concerned, and those of their advisors, together with the responses to the questions of clarification which were put to those present at the meeting, the Sub-Committee resolved that:

 

(1)               In respect of the allegations made as part of the proceedings, there were various allegations in relation to each officer which required no formal action under the procedure.

 

(2)               In respect of the allegations made as part of the proceedings, there were various allegations in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.