Personnel Committee - Thursday 30 January 2025, 2:00pm - Folkestone & Hythe webcasting

Personnel Committee
Thursday, 30th January 2025 at 2:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 

Welcome to Folkestone and Hythe District Council's Webcast Player.

 

UPDATE - PLEASE NOTE, MEETINGS OF THE JOINT TRANSPORTATION BOARD AND FOLKESTONE AND HYTHE DISTRICT AND PARISH COUNCILS' JOINT COMMITTEE WILL BE STREAMED LIVE TO YOUTUBE AT: bit.ly/YouTubeMeetings. 


The webcast should start automatically for you, and you can jump to specific points of interest within the meeting by selecting the agenda point or the speaker that you are interested in, simply by clicking the tabs above this message. You can also view any presentations used in the meeting by clicking the presentations tab. We hope you find the webcast interesting and informative.

 

Please note, although officers can be heard when they are speaking at meetings, they will not be filmed.

 

At the conclusion of a meeting, the webcast can take time to 'archive'.  You will not be able to view the webcast until the archiving process is complete.  This is usually within 24 hours of the meeting.

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Good afternoon everyone and welcome to the meeting of the personnel committee.
Due to technical issues this meeting is being recorded and is not being webcast live to
the internet.
The recording of this meeting will be uploaded to the internet as soon as possible.
For those who do not wish to be recorded or filmed you will need to leave the chamber.
For members, officers and others speaking at the meeting it is important that the microphones
are used so viewers on the webcast and others in the room may hear you.
Would anyone with a mobile phone please switch it to silent as they can be distracting.
And I would like to remind all members that although we have strong opinions on matters
under consideration it is important to treat members, officers and others with respect.
Thank you.
Afternoon everyone.
Item number one, apologies for absence.
Thank you chair, we have one apology from Councillor Rich Holgate.
Thank you.
Item number two, declarations of interest.
Do any members wish to have anything to declare?
I'm just going to say that I'm an assistant branch secretary for Kent Unison Branch which
is affiliated to this branch.
Okay, thank you.
Any other members?
No?
Okay.
Item number three, minutes.
I've got a few minutes here.
To consider and approve as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on the 18th
of July, the 10th of October and the 11th of December.
Does anyone have any questions or comments from anything other than those?
If not, are we happy to propose to accept those?
I have a proposer and seconder.
Thank you, Councillor Martin.
Then all in favour?
Okay.
I'll sign those.
Okay, item number four, pay policy statement for 25 -26, which is included in the PAC, and
there is some track changes to help you identify what's changed between last year and this
year and to say a bit about this.
Andrina, thank you.
Thank you, Joe.
This is one of the annual reports that you see. It's been
coming in since 2012 now and it's for you to recommend into
Council for approval for April
2025. This year there's not a huge amount of change to the
actual Pay Policy Statement itself. The main changes really
are updating the information, the data, salaries, that sort of
thing. So it is up to date from where we were last year.
The main change that we're suggesting this year is really off the back of recruiting
to the director before Christmas because we followed the absolute process and had to come
from personnel committee, call a council meeting because the salary was over £100 ,000, council
to vote on that salary that was being offered.
The situation we're in now is that the £100 ,000 threshold that was set was set 12 years ago
We're a long way forward from that and we've got a salary scale for directors that starts
above a hundred thousand pounds.
There is no choice in terms of it being over a hundred thousand pounds as a package.
However, the pay policy in an earlier paragraph, paragraph 19, says that we always appoint
to the bottom of the scale wherever possible and let's be looking at experience and qualifications
that bring us above that.
So the proposal within this document this year is to say, well actually if we're going
to appoint at the bottom of the scale, as we did with the Director of Finance, you couldn't
have appointed any lower.
You had to come in at the 108 that that salary was.
So if we do that, we're in accordance with the pay policy coming at the bottom of the
band, is it reasonable to say rather than calling council in to vote on the salary,
actually at the next meeting.
Will be better to just take a report into Council that says we
followed this process and we pointed at the bottom of the
grade so they got it to note and have that in front of those
information. If you were pointing at salary point 2, 3 or
4, yes, that's more of a discretionary thing that you
would still have to take back to Council because you're not
appointing at the bottom of the
scale. That's why there's the suggestion to amend power graph
24 and that's the key change this year. Have a state
questions as always.
Thank you, Andrea.
So part 24 in red is the suggested new writing for that.
So members have anything else that they've flagged up in the paper policy statement or
have any thoughts about that suggestion?
I agree with the suggestion or recommendation.
and it was really good to have it in red, the tracking,
so that you could look up and see what the difference was.
So thank you for that.
I think that's a sensible way forward.
Okay, anyone else?
Find yourselves a...
Some councillors might be happy with that.
And I'm just thinking, so what we're saying,
that 100 ,000 we can be appointed,
but anything over 100 ,000 has to come to council.
What's the point when it comes to council?
So the way it would change is primarily
the director's pay scale, that's what we're talking about.
And it starts at 108, and there's three more
increments above that.
So whatever you appoint is going to be 100k or more.
But the Pay Policy also says we should appoint at the bottom of the scale.
So if you're doing that and there's an established post in the structure that you've recruited to
and you're offering that bottom salary point, what would councillors be voting on?
Because you can't be lower than 108, that's the base point.
But we would take it to council to vote on the salary package if it was two, three or four points on the scale
because then that is a choice and it's not quite...
It's the ability to do that within the policy,
but it's not as straightforward, obviously.
So what's the value here? Is it down to the only one?
So the next step is about 112. It's only meaning...
112 .395.
Thank you.
Okay, yeah, and as you said, working on that and being 12 years old, I mean, I think the
director's salary was starting at something like 92 or 93, I think so.
So I mean, you could still appoint directors without full council when it was started.
So I think the numbers would need to evolve with inflation and things like that.
So I don't have an issue with that.
Is there anything else on any other aspects of the Pay Policy Statement?
Okay, so.
Could I just also say that hopefully we will never be in this situation where we have to
come back to Council.
We filled the Vacants post and my thanks to you all for that.
But it just felt that it was a tidy up of something that we've got,
which puts us in a good position, whatever the future is.
So that's really why we thought it was worth coming,
although we don't ever expect to use it.
We did not lose any dirt.
Okay, so someone would like to propose?
Councillor Martin, something to add?
No, I just thought... Is there any merit in trying to move that point along with inflation,
make it inflation proof, so you don't have to keep coming back to ask?
Or just throwing that out there as an idea?
The £100 ,000 is set by DCLG 12 years ago, and it's from that localism act,
from those guidance that came out from that,
that was there, until that changes, we're stuck with it.
Okay, so someone like to propose the Castle Martin.
And second, it's the Castle King, and a favor.
Okay, that's lovely.
All right, and then, as I say,
it's quite short of an agenda today, isn't it?
So item 6, pay award, oh no, I've got to, it seems a bit weird, but okay.
Item 5, exclusion of the public, to exclude the public for the followment item of business
on the grounds that it is likely to disclose exempt information as defined in paragraph
4 of part 1 of schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1973, information relating to consultations
or negotiations or complicated consultations in connection with any labour relations matters
arising between the authority or a Minister of the Crown and employees of or office holders
under the authority.
Very detailed.
So before we go into discussions on the pay award are we happy to move into a private
session?
Can someone propose?
Councillor Olin to be seconded.
Councillor Keene and all in favour?
Lovely.
And if we can