Agenda item

To submit the report of Councillor Thomas G. Ellis, Chairman of the Democratic Services Committee (attached).

Submitted - the report of Councillor Thomas G. Ellis, Chairman of the Democratic Services Committee, on behalf of a sub-group of the Committee, recommending the way forward in respect of elected members' salaries.

 

Referring to the recommendation to keep the level of salaries of Cabinet Members and Committee Chairs on Level 1, an amendment was proposed and seconded to reduce the salaries levels to Level 2, on the grounds that this would save approximately £40,000 to be spent in other fields and showed the residents of the county that the Council was willing to share the pain of the current period of austerity.

 

Some members expressed their objection to the amendment on the grounds that:-

 

·         Although there was always room to examine the salaries of all members, it would be a mistake to separate the Cabinet Members' duties from the salary as the duties would remain the same but the salaries would be reduced.

·         Cabinet Members had been appointed to the posts on a full-time basis and some had given up other jobs or had had to make special arrangements to be able to take on the role.

·         This was not the time to review salaries but rather at the beginning of the Council's new term.

·         If there was a desire to re-visit salaries, then all members' salaries should be examined and not Cabinet Members' salaries only.

 

A vote was taken on the amendment and it fell.

 

Referring to the recommendation not to pay the higher salary to the Chair of the Employment Appeals Committee hereafter, the current Chair of the Employment Appeals Committee (who would be standing down this month), expressed his objection to the recommendation on the grounds that:-

 

·         The Committee acted on behalf of 6,000 - 7,000 Council employees and had to make very difficult and emotional decisions e.g. dismissing staff.

·         The number of meetings had increased with the committee convening at least once a month and sometimes twice a month.

·         The meetings were all-day meetings and one meeting had continued for two days and another meeting had gone from 9.30am until 7.00pm.

·         The sub-group which had examined members' salaries had not discussed the workload with him or with members of the Committee before forming their recommendation.

·         If the Council was willing to refuse the recommendation, he was willing to propose that the sub-group should undertake more research on the issue which would include questioning the chairs and members of the Employment Appeals Committee and the Pensions Committee regarding the workload.

 

The amendment to retain the current arrangements because of the workload of the Employment Appeals Committee was proposed and seconded.

 

During the discussion on the amendment, it was noted:-

 

·         Additional work facing the Chair of the Pensions Committee could lead to 17 meetings a year, including an overnight stay on some occasions and it could mean committing to at least 19 days in this respect.

·         Members of the Pensions Committee had to undertake continuous training and assessments.

·         It was anticipated that the sub-group had examined in detail the workload associated with both roles and had made comparisons and had come to an understanding. 

·         The Chair of the Pensions Committee had much work to do outside the committee and it was not only a matter of the number of meetings.

 

In response to a query regarding the accuracy of the figures in the report in terms of the number of meetings of the Employment Appeals Committee, the Head of Corporate Support confirmed that four meetings had been held in 2015-16, although one day per month had been earmarked for holding an urgent hearing if needed.

 

It was noted, although the majority of meetings of the Employment Appeals Committee were cancelled, that tended to happen at the last minute after members had completed all the preparatory work.

 

A vote was taken on the amendment to retain the current arrangement and it fell.

 

A vote was taken on the original proposal not to pay higher salaries to the Chairman of the Employment Appeals Committee hereafter and it was carried.

 

RESOLVED

(a)    To keep the salary levels of Cabinet Members on Level 1 (based on consideration given to the workload and equal responsibilities to the work areas) and to retain the salary levels of Committee Chairs on Level 1 (based on consideration given to workload the geographical nature of the county and the need to travel to meetings etc.)  

(b)    Based on the information considered by the sub-group, to pay a higher salary to the Chair of the Pensions Committee as a result of the work and additional requirements that would be coming to the Chair of that committee as a consequence of the changes.

(c)    To be able to implement the above, as the Council is restricted in paying only 18 higher salaries, a higher salary would not be paid to the Chair of the Employment Appeals Committee henceforth.