THE MESSAGE from this week’s meeting of the Senior Staff Committee was clear: The days of high Chief Executive pay are over.

Unanimous: Senior Staff Committee votes to support a £130k basic salary for the man or woman who will
succeed Bryn Parry-Jones

However, while the seven members of the Committee were unanimous in voting through a salary of £130K to replace the pensioned-off Bryn Parry-Jones, the journey they took to reach that position was, by turns, tortuous and winding.

The decision of December’s council was to refer elements of the appointments process for Bryn’s successor to the Senior Staff Committee. The Committee’s objective was to refer back to Council questions about the job description, timetable, and salary: The council would consider the matter of salary, taking into account Committee’s recommendation.

Whether it was the pressure of the BBC being in attendance or the descent of a spirit of unity and bonhomie, the debate was noticeably less sharp-edged than might have been expected. Although perhaps after over two hours’ debate on the day, and with the finishing line of L’affaire Bryn in sight, councillors were happy to just get things done with little drama and all passions spent.

Council Leader Jamie Adams was, for once, nonplussed to find himself in an increasingly isolated minority of one on most of the key points under debate. His personal preference, for there being a Managing Director as one of a board of directors, was torpedoed by the Council’s head of human resources, Ceri Davies.

Prompted by a question for Cllr Tessa Hodgson (Lamphey, Unaffiliated), Mr Davies stated that his view was that while the model based around having a managing director was sustainable in the short term, he did not regard it as feasible beyond that. He continued with the observation that while Ian Westley was putting in long hours in fulfilling his acting Head of Service role with his broader portfolio responsibilities, it was inappropriate for that to long continue.

In addition, Ceri Davies suggested a possibly terminal flaw in adopting the managing director model. He told the meeting that: “Appointing a lead director would present an additional challenge to re-organisation; namely, how would one facilitate a directorate for that person to manage? If that individual’s skill set dictated, for example, a social care brief, how could we deal with making the current post holder redundant or subject to redeployment.”

His observations were supported by Cllr Rob Lewis (Martletwy, IPPG), former deputy leader of the authority and the Cabinet member responsible for Ian Westley’s technical directorate (highways, transportation and major events). Suggesting that the current arrangements were ‘detrimental to the authority’, Cllr Lewis went on to say that: “It has become extremely difficult to engage with Ian Westley due to him juggling his different roles. Ian has a capable team around him, but I think the current position would be unsustainable.”

While the concern about combining the executive role with a technical one was batted about, nobody seemed prepared to consider whether the combination of functions would include prevailing up current Deputy Chief Executive Ben Prykett to fulfil part of the Chief Executive’s functions while a technical director ‘doubled up’. Mr Prykett’s post is, if not unique in Wales, certainly anomalous.

Cllr Paul Miller (Neyland West, Labour) wanted to open up the debate regarding the appointment to embrace a wider review of the whole of the senior staff structure and senior staff pay and grading. He was resisted by Cllr Adams, who suggested that the question structure was one that could be dealt with by any new incumbent to the senior role, who could decide upon the structure they preferred. The leader’s opinion was developed by vice-chair David Lloyd (St Davids, Unaffiliated) who suggested that it was made express to candidates that they would be expected to work collegially and to consider the council’s management structure in conjunction with the Senior Staff Committee after appointment.

That left Cllr Adams facing rather a struggle to row back from the logical consequences of a position that he had advanced not long before. However, he was successful in resisting calls for an immediate review of the matter ahead of appointment of a new Head of Service.

Relieved by that success, he appeared to be caught off guard by Cllr Huw George (Maenclochog, IPPG) enthusiastically endorsing Paul Miller’s suggestion that the council set a ratio between any new Chief’s pay and the pay of the lowest paid members of the County Council’s staff. Again, Cllr Adams was keen to put this decision off to another day. While he succeeded, it will be difficult for the leader to resist such a motion if it went to Full Council, given the heads on his own side nodding in support of Cllr Miller’s idea.

The debate moved on to discuss the thorny issue of salary: the former post holder’s remuneration package attracted publicity for all the wrong reasons and the Council accepted it had to reduce the salary paid. The question was by how much.

The committee, unsurprisingly, were reluctant to endorse the status quo and remunerate a new post holder as generously as their predecessor. It would have taken a very courageous member indeed to suggest that option. Debate thereafter settled on one of three options: Follow the pay award suggested by the Independent Remuneration Panel (£130K); follow the suggestion advanced in-house of £147,000; Find a messy compromise figure in the middle.

Cllrs Miller, Lloyd and Hodgson firmly backed the £130,000 figure, especially after Cllr Hodgson teased out the information that with a car allowance now trimmed to £7,300 per annum and employer’s pension contributions the total package would be worth in excess of £156,000: On top of which would be the fees paid to the appointee as Returning Officer for elections (around £12,000).

With Cllr Tom Richards (Letterston, IPPG) agreeing with Cllr Lloyd’s suggestion that the council move to recruit on a salary of £130,000 with a review if the post attracts insufficient applicants of sufficient quality, Cllr Adams was left isolated in trying to find a compromise between the £130,000 and £147,000 figure and went with the flow of the meeting. The £130,000 figure was approved unanimously in a moment captured by Cllr Jacob Williams’ camera.

With the Welsh Government suggesting it could limit the term Chief Executives could be employed by local authorities, the question for certainty seems unending.

The next stopping point on this journey is March’s Full Council, where the committee’s recommendation will be debated. At that point, we shall see whether Cllr Miller advances his plan to ensure that the pay of the authority’s most senior employee is not out of sight of those at the bottom of the pay-scale.