Agenda item

To consider the joint report of the Leaders of Gloucester City Council and Gloucestershire County Council seeking approval to appoint a Managing Director for the City Council and a Commissioning Director for the County Council to deliver a new concept of joint working between the two organisations.

59.1      The Council considered a joint report of the Leaders of the City Council and Gloucestershire County Councilconcerning proposals to jointly appoint a Managing Director for the City Council and Commissioning Director for the County Council.

59.2      Councillor James moved the recommendations set out in the report and advised that, in determining the appropriate senior management structure for the Council, all options had been considered and that a shared post with County Council was the right choice for both authorities; the shared post would help achieve efficiencies through increased joint working and would give the City Council the opportunity to influence policy. He thanked Opposition Group Leaders for supporting the ground-breaking proposals.

59.3      Councillor Dallimore seconded the motion.

59.4      Councillor Hilton (Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group) stated that the proposals for a shared post were innovative and would amount to a ‘partnership of equals’ between the two local authorities. He emphasised the importance of wide advertisement of the post in order to attract the desired standard of candidates.

59.5      Councillor Haigh (Leader of the Labour Group) stated that the Council had been through a challenging period of organisational change and that the proposals would provide the City Council with the appropriate management arrangements with significant benefits for both local authorities, while retaining separate democratic structures. She stated that communication between Members and officers must improve in the proposals were to succeed and that proper democratic oversight be put in place.

59.6      Councillor Smith raised concerns that the proposals were not widely tested and that more detailed was required to fully understand how the joint post would operate, particularly in the event of a dispute between the two local authorities. She stated that staff morale was low and communication with Members was poor.

59.7      Councillor Wilson advised that he was supportive of the proposals, but highlighted concerns about resilience. He emphasised the need to recruit to the vacant Corporate Director of Resources post quickly, along with the joint post.

59.8      Councillor Tracey questioned the impact of the proposals on staff across the both the City and County Councils and urged senior Members and officers to improve communication with staff.

59.9      Councillor C. Witts echoed the need to improve staff morale and communication across the City Council.

59.10   Councillor S. Witts asked how conflicts of interest would be dealt with and what would happen when the joint postholder took leave.

59.11   Councillor Norman (Cabinet Member for Performance and Resources) advised that a number of similar arrangements were operating successfully across the country and that extensive research and consultation had been undertaken. He confirmed that appropriate scrutiny arrangements would be established and stated that the proposals would enable the City Council to move forward with strength and purpose.

59.12   Councillor Lugg commented that Members should have been provided with more detail on how the arrangements would work in practice.

59.13   Councillor Dallimore stated that many significant projects were in progress, but that the appropriate senior management structure was required to deliver the Council Plan objectives. She stated that the proposals would encourage collaborative working, while increased opportunities for shared services would deliver savings. She noted that the County Council was keen to benefit from the City Council’s community engagement mechanisms.

59.14   Councillor James stated that the Council had welcomed the LGA Peer Challenge and that much had changed since the exercise was undertaken. He explained that the joint postholder would spend the majority of their time on Gloucester matters and cover arrangements would be identical to arrangements if the post were not to be shared. He reported that staff morale was not low and this was evidenced at the recent Staff Event and by the warm praise for the Corporate Director of Services and Neighbourhoods. He stated that recruitment to the shared post would happen first in order that the appointed individual could help guide the appointment of the Corporate Director of Resources.

59.15   RESOLVED –

(1)      The post of Managing Director for the City Council and Commissioning Director for the County Council to be advertised and recruited to.

(2)      The Head of Paid Service role for the City Council to be assigned to the Managing Director role from the date of appointment.

(3)      Both roles be shared equally (18.5hrs per week).

(4)      Gloucester City Council be the employing authority.

(5)      All costs associated with the roles to be split equally between both organisations, now and in the future.