Hertfordshire are considering the alternative of promoting someone from within but doing away with their job instead of the CEO role.
Other Authorities are taking the opportunity, when their CEO retires, of approaching neighbouring authorities and asking if they can share their CEO. This raises the question of whether that CEO will be able to give sufficient time to both authorities and if not will one or both of the Authorities suffer? The CEO is only as good as his staff so sharing a CEO will probably work in well-run authorities but in authorities that are already struggling this is unlikely to be the answer.
Ms Tapster is currently paid over £200,000 in her role as CEO but the Council are hoping to persuade her replacement to accept the new role but to remain on the same or slightly increased salary. If her replacement is an internal appointment they propose that the position that the replacement comes from will not be replaced and that the newly appointed CEO will remain on the same pay scale as their previous role. This would result in a saving to the council of over £200,000.
In December Councillor David Lloyd said:
“The need to constrain public spending means that the council’s total income is falling while the pressure to spend increases, particularly because of inflation and the cost of meeting the needs of Herts’ aging population……..Taken together, these factors mean that we have to reduce our spending by around £200m a year by 2014-15.”
So what are the alternatives for councils who have to find £200m a year in savings? Well getting rid of highly paid staff and not replacing them or replacing them with someone less expensive is clearly one avenue being explored by Hertfordshire CC and other authorities but a saving of 0.1% leaves £199,800,000 to be found.
Cllr Lloyd has indicated that they are three-quarters of the way towards their target but savings of this scale cannot be made by internal re-organisation alone. Some of us have already noticed these cuts including the turning off of street lights, reduced bus services and funding cuts to various charities.
The outcome of today’s council meeting will be watched carefully by many of us who care about our Council. Nockolds recognise that these are difficult times and cut backs and savings need to be made but the Council must do all they can to ensure this has as little impact on their residents and local businesses as possible.
Ivan Moody 23rd January 2012
Ivan Moody (profile) 
Monday 23rd January 2012
Local Government stories →
Nockolds LLP stories →
COMMISSIONING (VIRTUAL) COUNCILS – ARE THEY THE WAY FORWARD?
Southampton City Council has recently announced that they are considering becoming a “commissioning council” but what does this mean?
A commissioning council tries to ensure there is flexibility for cultural change whilst guaranteeing a healthy public sector into the future and maintaining efficiency.
The general public are usually unconcerned about who provides their services as long as they are high quality, consistent and delivered in an efficient and effective manner. It is no longer necessary for existing councils to provide the services themselves and they should look to see whether it would be beneficial to outsource some services to the private sector. In certain circumstances outsourcing will not be the correct way forward but councils should consider the private, public and third sectors to see which can provide each of the services they require at best value for their constituents.
Southampton City Council’s decision to involve outsourcing firm Capita in discussions about becoming a commissioning council by 2015 have been criticised by Unite the Union as they believe this will have a significant effect on the services that are provided as well as the employment conditions and pensions of existing council workers.
The Council leader, Councillor Royston Smith, denies that working with private companies such as Capita would lead to residents receiving “an inferior standard of service”. He believes that by working with companies such as Capita they can provide an even better service to residents whilst finding the necessary savings required in these difficult times.
As with all debates about the benefits of the public and private services there are good and bad points made by each side. The unions should embrace the prospect of working with the private sector, which will in many circumstances improve their members’ conditions and prospects. The council should also recognise the important part that their existing staff play in the services that are provided and not automatically assume that private sector companies can perform the work better than their existing staff.
In the legal sector, for example, it would be foolhardy to completely do away with a legal department, as a number of the areas which local government have to deal with are best left in-house. There are, however, numerous areas of law where the use of external firms such as Nockolds LLP can be of significant benefit to the councils. For example, outsourcing employment law issues can help ensure that the relations between the council and the union (which often break down when these are dealt with in-house) remain convivial.
Each council must decide how best to run the services they provide to the public but outsourcing some services whilst keeping others in house may (in the long run) be the best solution.
Ivan Moody (profile) Thursday 12th January 2012
Nockolds LLP stories →
Personal Injury & Accident stories →
Is sharing a Chief Executive a good idea?
On 20th October 2011 London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF) and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) announced that they will be sharing a Chief Executive, Derek Myers. Mr Myers has been Chief Executive of RBKC since 2000 and takes on the dual role when the current Chief Executive of LBHF, Geoff Alltimes retires.
The reason for the decision to share a Chief Executive is the need to make substantial cuts and it is rumoured this decision will save £200,000pa. The decision raises a number of concerns, the major one being how Mr Myers intends to split his time, but if he manages to succeed there is no doubt other councils will give serious consideration to doing the same. A number of councils already share certain services, for example Watford Borough Council and Three Rivers District Council share a number of services. They are also seriously considering combining with Wycombe District Council to share Legal Services.
Another option is for councils to consider outsourcing more of their work. Groups of Local Authorities are likely to have significant bargaining power with the private sector if they club together rather than looking for their own suppliers. A printing Company or Office Stationer (for example) may be prepared to negotiate a substantial reduction in their prices if they are supplying in bulk to a number of councils rather than just one. The large supermarkets have already shown how this can work and although we may not approve of their methods (in dealing with suppliers) local authorities, if they wish to make substantial savings, may have to follow suit.
Local Authorities throughout the country are being asked to find considerable savings and sharing services or even Chief Executives may be the way forward. The concern must be whether the service they provide their constituents will be affected. If the decision to share a Chief Executive by LBHF and RBKC is a success the cynical amongst us may ask what Mr Myers and Mr Alltimes have been doing with 50% of their time now the two jobs are going to be filled by only one man.
For more information on Nockolds legal services for Local Government and the public sector, please contact Ivan Moody on 01279 712532.
Ivan Moody (profile) Thursday 20th October 2011
Local Government stories →
