Minutes:
The Chair informed the Committee that this item was to consider a Call-in request in respect of the Cabinet decision taken on 4th July 2018 in respect of “Restructure of Attractions”.
The Scrutiny Manager advised the committee on the process as outlined in the Constitution. The purpose was to consider the appropriateness of a decision that had already been taken by the Executive, a decision that had been called-in by Members. Members were advised that the Committee was not able to make a decision themselves but were able to do one of the following:
1. Accept the Cabinet’s decision.
2. Refer the matter back to Cabinet for re-consideration (with reasons).
3. Refer the matter to Council for consideration.
The Chair invited Members who requested the call-in to briefly outline their reasons for calling in the decision. The following points were noted:
Members who were signatories of the Call in expressed concern about the report as follows:
· The report was considered by Cabinet without pre-decision scrutiny, no papers were available in advance of the meeting (therefore there had been insufficient notice) and the outcome was not listed as a proposal.
· The report was vague with insufficient, defined information provided on costs and how they were calculated.
· The position on possible redundancies was unclear and responsibility for costs was questioned as implementation would be ahead of the Alternative Delivery Model (ADM) and could exceed the £10,000 limit. It was also questioned if the cost of redundancies had been added into the ADM process.
· The rationale was questioned noting that it was unclear if there was any financial advantage from the proposed change. It was queried why the change was proposed at this time, ahead of implementation in December.
· It was questioned what arrangements would be in place to cover leave and sickness absence for the new Visitor Attractions Group Manager post, and also to address staff stress.
The Chair invited the Cabinet Member to provide a response.
The Cabinet Member advised that this decision was not directly connected with an ADM adding that the Council had not made a decision as yet. The reason for change arose from the need for a better management structure and this would have been the case with or without an ADM. If an ADM proceeds it will be important to have a management structure that is fit for purpose from the beginning to ensure the best possible start.
· Regarding possible redundancies, it was confirmed that those likely to be affected would have been consulted first.
· Considering the reason for the Call In, the Cabinet Member acknowledged that costs could be over the £10,000 threshold as the costs are not fully known as they depend on appointment to jobs in the new structure and e.g. years of service etc.
· The point was made that the Council makes decisions on a very regular basis and it would be impossible for every decision to be pre-scrutinised but there is the facility of Call in that allows any member to challenge any decision. To change to a process so that every decision is pre-scrutinised would require a motion to Council to change the Constitution.
· The Cabinet Member acknowledged that there is no financial advantage or savings to be made by following this course of action but a better management structure would be in place to manage attractions. He confirmed his understanding that no alternatives had been put forward.
The Chair welcomed the Cabinet Member’s comments on pre decision scrutiny and expressed his view that the Call In was about following process. It was acknowledged that the report should have been on the Cabinet Forward Work Planner to ensure that decisions can be pre-scrutinised as required.
The Cabinet Member remarked that there had been no time for pre-scrutiny as it was a priority to address the management structure to address pressures within the team and embed a new management structure ahead of an ADM decision to ensure there is as good a position as possible before any change is made. Assurances were provided that where possible, pre-scrutiny is undertaken.
The Head of Tourism, Leisure, Culture & Youth confirmed that there would have been a restructure regardless of ADM because of the length of time the ADM decision process had taken to date and because of stress in the workplace in Attractions. He praised the commitment and motivation of staff confirming that the teams had reached capacity and the new structure would alleviate some of the issues and bring some consistency to processes across the sites. The Group Manager would also have opportunity to take a more commercial approach.
It was confirmed that staff and managers were consulted with extensively.
A Member, whilst agreeing that action was necessary, suggested that a topic such as a management restructure, with potential redundancies, warranted the opportunity for scrutiny. It was questioned what is expected from the change to a new structure in terms of improved performance or return on investment to justify possible redundancies, and how performance can be better with less people.
The Assistant Finance/Section 151 Officer provided clarification that the same process for redundancy is used for all redundancies. It is a two stage process that acknowledges the need for re-engineering of services and change, and reminded the committee that it is not possible to prejudge appointment to the new roles and redundancy payments are bespoke to the individual according to salary, years of service etc. There was therefore an approximation of costs.
A Member confirmed that the report was presented to Council on 6th June 2018 as a matter for Cabinet and explained there would have been opportunity for scrutiny thus avoiding the Call In.
The Chair advised the Select Committee that following detailed discussion, Members now needed to consider the way forward and it was necessary to choose one of the following options:
1. Accept the Cabinet’s decision;
2. Refer the matter back to Cabinet for re-consideration, with reasons; or
3. Refer the matter to Council for consideration
The Chair summed up that:
· The decision taken was not directly related to ADM, noting that a decision on ADM has not yet been made by Council;
· A better management structure is needed and the operational layer with a Group Manager was the preferred means to be in the best possible position to hand over in the event that an ADM is approved by Council;
· Staff members were consulted as part of a robust process; and
· Whilst redundancy costs are not specifically known, it was accepted that they are likely to be over £10,000.
Members put forward two proposals:
1. Accept the Cabinet’s decision; and
2. Refer the matter to Council for consideration
Upon being put to the vote, the proposal to accept the Cabinet’s decision was carried. As there was a clear outcome, the Chair did not vote.
Members calling in the decision, the Cabinet Member and Officers were thanked for their contribution.