1.       CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

2.      INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.1        This is the first year of using the new arrangements for carrying out the appraisals of the Chief Executive and Directors, agreed as part of the committee structure review last year.  Part of the changes introduced were that the functions of the Employment Committee were split between the Democracy and General Purposes Committee and Policy and Resources Committee. 

2.2        Carrying out the appraisals became the responsibility of the Policy and Resources Committee and the terms of reference for the committee state:

2.3        This report therefore seeks to establish the panel to allow the appraisals for the Chief Executive and Directors to take place ahead of the appraisal process for the rest of the officers.  This allows the objectives and direction set to cascade down through the authority.

3.   AVAILABLE OPTIONS

3.1     The Committee could agree to appoint a panel in accordance with the rules of political balance.  This would produce a seat allocation as follows:

Two Conservative Group, two Liberal Democrat Group and one seat with equal claim from the Labour Group and the Independent Group.

3.2     The Committee would need to establish who the final seat is allocated to between the Labour Group and the Independent Group due to the equal claim for the seat between two Groups.

3.3     Alternatively, the Committee could agree to an alternative arrangement for the five Member panel making it politically unbalanced but as close to balanced as possible whilst meeting the wishes of Group Leaders.   It should be noted that any vote on any arrangement that is not in political balance will automatically be lost if a single member objects to it (in accordance with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989).

3.4     Once the seats have been allocated it is for Group Leaders to make the appointments to the panel from the Members of the Committee. 

3.5     The Committee could request an amendment to the constitution to go to Council on 26 February 2020 to appoint a different number of members of the panel, but this could delay the arrangement and timing of the appraisals.  Additionally, increasing the panel’s size would undermine the original purpose of establishing a panel, which was to limit the number of Members involved in the process to make it more effective and focussed.

4.        PREFERRED OPTION AND REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1     That the Committee agree the seat allocation for the five members Performance Panel that it wants, noting that a politically balanced seat allocation for 5 seats creates a Membership of two Conservative Group, two Liberal Democrat Group and an equal claim to the final seat for the Labour Group and Independent Group.  It is for the Committee to determine the Membership and seats on its own sub-committee (which the panel is classified as); and

4.2     That the wishes of the Group leaders are accepted for the Members and Substitute Members of the Panel as it is for Group Leaders to determine such appointments.

5.       RISK

5.1   The risks associated with this proposal, including the risks if the Council does not act as recommended, have been considered in line with the Council’s Risk Management Framework. We are satisfied that the risks associated are within the Council’s risk appetite and will be managed as per the Policy.

6.       CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK

6.1     None.

7.       NEXT STEPS: COMMUNICATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISION

7.1     Meetings of the Panel will be arranged to conduct the appraisals for Chief Executive and Directors.

8.        REPORT APPENDICES

       None

9.        BACKGROUND PAPERS

None