Venue: THE ARBORETUM PARK, NOTTINGHAM
Times: 12pm – 6pm
Date: Sunday 2nd July
FREE ADMISSION
With a theme of ‘a world of Nottingham music’ the city’s second Chill in the Park is bigger and better this year, taking place at The Arboretum Park on Sunday July 2nd.
With over 50 different languages spoken in Nottingham, the modest but popular event, described by one reviewer as “a pocket sized WOMAD”, aims to be a snapshot of the wealth of musical diversity within the City.
With music and musicians originating from Europe, Africa, Asia, The Caribbean and the Middle East 2006 plays host to:
Ethiopian/British Jazz/folk trio HAIKIS TRIOKA,
Vietnamese singers HA & CHI,
Singer songwriter guitarist MELANIE,
Angolan singer percussionist NEY,
Traditional Chinese musicians LING PENG and XIAO YING,
Human beatboxer LIPPICOOL,
Persian and Kurdish music from Iran with HAMAYOUN and FARHAD,
Classical Bollywood songs by RAJ
Plus DJ THE LAIDBACK PROJECT featuring RAPUNZEL M.A.P. and The New Laidbackism’s DJ D? C.I.? (yes, that is his name).
Chill in the Park boasts an intimate, family-friendly atmosphere in Nottingham’s most popular and beautiful public park. For those who like outdoor music events, Chill in the Park 2006 will be a key date in Nottingham’s events diary.
And you can buy cheap books whilst supporting NNRF's Destitution Fund at the ExLibris stall.
20 June 2006
Branch response to Pensions Consultation
15th June 2006
Dear Ms Rochester
RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
I am writing to you to give the views of the Nottinghamshire County UNISON Branch on the current consultation on the DCLG’s proposed amendments to the April 2006 Regulations. We are a large Branch with 12,500 members and received very wide spread support for the campaign to protect our pension.
The Branch remains opposed to the removal of the 85 Year Rule from 1 October this year. We are aware that our union has lodged a judicial review and been given leave to proceed with it. We are challenging the Government’s view that the 85 Year Rule breaches age discrimination Regulations and prevents existing LGPS members from having full protection of their existing 85 Year Rule rights. We believe that such protection would be fair and in line with the protection afforded to members of every other public sector pension scheme.
Views on the current proposals
We recognise that the current proposals represent a minor improvement to the protections included in the April 2006 Regulations. To that extent, we do not oppose their introduction, pending the judicial review, as they would benefit some of our members.
However, Notts. County Branch does not believe that these amendments are sufficient to overcome the anger and lost morale amongst LGPS members, who now see themselves as the ‘poor relations’ of the public sector. Neither will they greatly assist the large number of LGPS employers faced with recruitment and retention problems. We continue to believe that our members in the LGPS should be given full protection, alongside civil servants, teachers, NHS staff, police and fire fighters and that such a course of action would be both just and equitable.
Whilst Notts. County UNISON Branch support the current limited proposed amendments, we would urge the Government to re-consider them to provide full protection of their 85 Year Rule rights to our members.
The wider Context
Our Branch would also urge the Government to halt this spiralling down of pension provision which will only create a crisis of destitution and poverty amongst the elderly in society in future years. The current proposals are short-term and expedient and it is time for the Government to recognise the huge benefits to society in good pensions for all. We would also state that the costs today will be far less than the bill tomorrow should they fail to act. We would especially urge the Government to cease the propaganda campaign against LGPS members and make sure that they properly reflect the true level of local government pensions (the average being less that £3000 per annum) rather than seek to paint local government workers as ‘fat cats’.
Finally we ask for parity with the most generous pension provision in the public sector in Europe, that of our MPs. Members of Notts. County Branch are disgusted that MPs have afforded themselves protection and benefits which they are denying to low-paid workers in local government. We believe that they should be ashamed.
Yours sincerely
Jill Turner
Joint Branch Secretary
Dear Ms Rochester
RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
I am writing to you to give the views of the Nottinghamshire County UNISON Branch on the current consultation on the DCLG’s proposed amendments to the April 2006 Regulations. We are a large Branch with 12,500 members and received very wide spread support for the campaign to protect our pension.
The Branch remains opposed to the removal of the 85 Year Rule from 1 October this year. We are aware that our union has lodged a judicial review and been given leave to proceed with it. We are challenging the Government’s view that the 85 Year Rule breaches age discrimination Regulations and prevents existing LGPS members from having full protection of their existing 85 Year Rule rights. We believe that such protection would be fair and in line with the protection afforded to members of every other public sector pension scheme.
Views on the current proposals
We recognise that the current proposals represent a minor improvement to the protections included in the April 2006 Regulations. To that extent, we do not oppose their introduction, pending the judicial review, as they would benefit some of our members.
However, Notts. County Branch does not believe that these amendments are sufficient to overcome the anger and lost morale amongst LGPS members, who now see themselves as the ‘poor relations’ of the public sector. Neither will they greatly assist the large number of LGPS employers faced with recruitment and retention problems. We continue to believe that our members in the LGPS should be given full protection, alongside civil servants, teachers, NHS staff, police and fire fighters and that such a course of action would be both just and equitable.
Whilst Notts. County UNISON Branch support the current limited proposed amendments, we would urge the Government to re-consider them to provide full protection of their 85 Year Rule rights to our members.
The wider Context
Our Branch would also urge the Government to halt this spiralling down of pension provision which will only create a crisis of destitution and poverty amongst the elderly in society in future years. The current proposals are short-term and expedient and it is time for the Government to recognise the huge benefits to society in good pensions for all. We would also state that the costs today will be far less than the bill tomorrow should they fail to act. We would especially urge the Government to cease the propaganda campaign against LGPS members and make sure that they properly reflect the true level of local government pensions (the average being less that £3000 per annum) rather than seek to paint local government workers as ‘fat cats’.
Finally we ask for parity with the most generous pension provision in the public sector in Europe, that of our MPs. Members of Notts. County Branch are disgusted that MPs have afforded themselves protection and benefits which they are denying to low-paid workers in local government. We believe that they should be ashamed.
Yours sincerely
Jill Turner
Joint Branch Secretary
Pension Consultation - have your say
It is vital that every branch and as many members as possible respond to the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) consultation on its interim proposals for extending the protection arrangement for LGPS members. (The DCLG has replaced the ODPM). In response to our industrial action on 28 March and the Joint Statement with the LGA, the DCLG proposes to amend the April 2006 Regulations.
The April 2006 Regulations
The Regulations introduced on the 1st April this year, propose the removal of the ‘85 Rule’ from the 1st October 2006. The protection arrangements in the April Regulations would mean that:
• If you satisfy the ‘85 Rule’, are under age 60 at 31st March 2013 and you retire voluntarily before the age of 65 then benefits earned on service after 1 October would be liable to be reduced by an early retirement factor.
• If you satisfy the ’85 Rule’ and are age 60 on or before 31st March 2013 then you have protection. If you retire voluntarily before the age of 65 only service earned after 31st March 2013 would be reduced by an early retirement factor.
As before, the Regulations require employer consent for members to retire and draw pension before the age of 60. If your employer allows you go before 60 then your benefits would not be reduced by an early retirement factor if you satisfied the ’85 Rule’ by that date.
A member can still retire on permanent ill health from any age and from the date the member is retired by the employer on efficiency or redundancy grounds if over age 50 without any early retirement factor.
How does the current Consultation Draft propose to change the protections?
There are three changes that will improve protections for those who satisfy the ’85 rule’:
• Protection to the 31st March 2013 is extended to 31st March 2016. This would mean that a member who satisfies the ’85 rule’ and who is 60 on or before 31st March 2016 and who was allowed to go before 60 or goes without consent from 60 to 65, then benefits earned up to 31st March 2016 would be unreduced by any early retirement factor.
• The ’85 rule’ would remain for all active members who satisfy it until 31st March 2008. This means that the rule of 85 will not cease at 1st October 2006 for members who join on or before that date, but continue until (depending on negotiations) at least 1st April 2008 when the ‘new scheme’ is scheduled to come into force.
• Those who reach age 60 between 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, who satisfy the ’85 rule’ and retire before the age of 65, would have any early retirement reduction on benefits earned after 1st April 2008 reduced by an early retirement factor that is tapered.
What else is in the consultation draft?
There are some technical changes that include making it clearer that a member can commute up to 25% of the capital value of their accrued rights that include benefits arising from additional contributions.
What is not in the consultation draft?
The current early retirement factors are out of date and too high. Discussions are ongoing with the Government Actuaries Department (GAD) to reduce them as soon as possible. The new factors will not be part of the Regulations but will be in guidance issued by GAD.
UNISON’s response to the current consultation
UNISON’s position – and that of the Trade Union Side – is that, while the proposals represent a marginal improvement, they fall well short of our objective of full protection for existing members if the 85 Rule is finally removed in October. Each of UNISON’s Service Groups have ‘noted’ them as interim proposals. We will continue to challenge the removal of Rule of 85 through our Judicial Review. We have voiced this view firmly at every opportunity during the negotiations and in all our dealings with Government.
UNISON and the other unions are asking you to:
• Continue to call for full protection for LGPS members, in line with the deal done for all the other public sector pension schemes
• Support the DCLG proposals as interim improvements only subject to further negotiations and our Judicial Review
To help branches, we have produced a model submission (below). Please put it into your own words and submit. The deadline for responding is 3 July 2006.
We hope that our Judicial Review will be heard in the next few weeks. If we are successful, we will be in a stronger position to challenge the Government and LGA’s resistance to full protection.
If your employer and/or council is supportive of our campaign then please also encourage them to formally respond to the consultation.
Responses need to be sent to:
Nicola Rochester
Local Government and Fire-fighters’ Pensions Schemes Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 2/F6
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Electronic responses can be sent to: nicola.rochester@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Please also send a copy of your response to:
The LGPS Unit
UNISON
1 Mabledon Place
London WC1H 9AJ
Electronic copies can be sent to: LGPS@unison.co.uk
MODEL RESPONSE TO THE DCLG CONSULTATION ON DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
(The deadline for responding is 3 July 2006)
To: Ms Nicola Rochester
Local Government and Fire-fighters Pensions Schemes Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 2/F6
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Dear Ms Rochester
RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
I am writing to you to give the views of the Toy Town UNISON branch / my own views to the current consultation on the DCLG’s proposed amendments to the April 2006 Regulations.
As you know, my union - UNISON - and the other trade unions, are opposed to the removal of the 85 Rule from 1 October this year. We have therefore lodged a judicial review and been given leave to proceed with it. We are challenging the Government’s view that the 85 Rule breaches age discrimination Regulations and/or prevents existing LGPS members from having full protection of their existing 85 Rule rights. We/I believe that such protection would be fair and in line with the protection afforded to members of every other public sector pension scheme. There will be a hearing in the next few weeks.
Views on the current proposals
My branch/I recognise that the current proposals represent a minor improvement to the protections included in the April 2006 Regulations, which came into force on 1 April this year. To that extent, we/I do not oppose their introduction, pending the judicial review, as they would benefit some of our members/myself. Recognising that, UNISON has ‘noted’ them and not opposed your current consultation.
However, Toy Town branch/I does/do not believe that your amendments are sufficient to overcome the anger and lost morale amongst LGPS members, who now see themselves as the ‘poor relations’ of the public sector. Neither will they greatly assist the large number of LGPS employers faced with recruitment and retention problems. We/I continue to believe that our members in the LGPS/I should be given full protection, alongside civil servants, teachers, NHS staff, police and fire fighters and that such a course of action would be both just and equitable.
My members/I also believe that the current early retirement factors are punitive and in urgent need of amendment. In our/my view they should be updated as soon as possible.
While Toy Town UNISON branch/I therefore support the current limited proposed amendments, we would urge you to re-consider them to provide full protection of their 85 Rule rights to my members/me.
For Nottinghamshire UNISON reponse: click here
The April 2006 Regulations
The Regulations introduced on the 1st April this year, propose the removal of the ‘85 Rule’ from the 1st October 2006. The protection arrangements in the April Regulations would mean that:
• If you satisfy the ‘85 Rule’, are under age 60 at 31st March 2013 and you retire voluntarily before the age of 65 then benefits earned on service after 1 October would be liable to be reduced by an early retirement factor.
• If you satisfy the ’85 Rule’ and are age 60 on or before 31st March 2013 then you have protection. If you retire voluntarily before the age of 65 only service earned after 31st March 2013 would be reduced by an early retirement factor.
As before, the Regulations require employer consent for members to retire and draw pension before the age of 60. If your employer allows you go before 60 then your benefits would not be reduced by an early retirement factor if you satisfied the ’85 Rule’ by that date.
A member can still retire on permanent ill health from any age and from the date the member is retired by the employer on efficiency or redundancy grounds if over age 50 without any early retirement factor.
How does the current Consultation Draft propose to change the protections?
There are three changes that will improve protections for those who satisfy the ’85 rule’:
• Protection to the 31st March 2013 is extended to 31st March 2016. This would mean that a member who satisfies the ’85 rule’ and who is 60 on or before 31st March 2016 and who was allowed to go before 60 or goes without consent from 60 to 65, then benefits earned up to 31st March 2016 would be unreduced by any early retirement factor.
• The ’85 rule’ would remain for all active members who satisfy it until 31st March 2008. This means that the rule of 85 will not cease at 1st October 2006 for members who join on or before that date, but continue until (depending on negotiations) at least 1st April 2008 when the ‘new scheme’ is scheduled to come into force.
• Those who reach age 60 between 1st April 2016 and before 1st April 2020, who satisfy the ’85 rule’ and retire before the age of 65, would have any early retirement reduction on benefits earned after 1st April 2008 reduced by an early retirement factor that is tapered.
What else is in the consultation draft?
There are some technical changes that include making it clearer that a member can commute up to 25% of the capital value of their accrued rights that include benefits arising from additional contributions.
What is not in the consultation draft?
The current early retirement factors are out of date and too high. Discussions are ongoing with the Government Actuaries Department (GAD) to reduce them as soon as possible. The new factors will not be part of the Regulations but will be in guidance issued by GAD.
UNISON’s response to the current consultation
UNISON’s position – and that of the Trade Union Side – is that, while the proposals represent a marginal improvement, they fall well short of our objective of full protection for existing members if the 85 Rule is finally removed in October. Each of UNISON’s Service Groups have ‘noted’ them as interim proposals. We will continue to challenge the removal of Rule of 85 through our Judicial Review. We have voiced this view firmly at every opportunity during the negotiations and in all our dealings with Government.
UNISON and the other unions are asking you to:
• Continue to call for full protection for LGPS members, in line with the deal done for all the other public sector pension schemes
• Support the DCLG proposals as interim improvements only subject to further negotiations and our Judicial Review
To help branches, we have produced a model submission (below). Please put it into your own words and submit. The deadline for responding is 3 July 2006.
We hope that our Judicial Review will be heard in the next few weeks. If we are successful, we will be in a stronger position to challenge the Government and LGA’s resistance to full protection.
If your employer and/or council is supportive of our campaign then please also encourage them to formally respond to the consultation.
Responses need to be sent to:
Nicola Rochester
Local Government and Fire-fighters’ Pensions Schemes Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 2/F6
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Electronic responses can be sent to: nicola.rochester@communities.gsi.gov.uk
Please also send a copy of your response to:
The LGPS Unit
UNISON
1 Mabledon Place
London WC1H 9AJ
Electronic copies can be sent to: LGPS@unison.co.uk
MODEL RESPONSE TO THE DCLG CONSULTATION ON DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
(The deadline for responding is 3 July 2006)
To: Ms Nicola Rochester
Local Government and Fire-fighters Pensions Schemes Division
Department for Communities and Local Government
Zone 2/F6
Ashdown House
123 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6DE
Dear Ms Rochester
RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON THE AMENDMENTS TO THE APRIL 2006 REGULATIONS
I am writing to you to give the views of the Toy Town UNISON branch / my own views to the current consultation on the DCLG’s proposed amendments to the April 2006 Regulations.
As you know, my union - UNISON - and the other trade unions, are opposed to the removal of the 85 Rule from 1 October this year. We have therefore lodged a judicial review and been given leave to proceed with it. We are challenging the Government’s view that the 85 Rule breaches age discrimination Regulations and/or prevents existing LGPS members from having full protection of their existing 85 Rule rights. We/I believe that such protection would be fair and in line with the protection afforded to members of every other public sector pension scheme. There will be a hearing in the next few weeks.
Views on the current proposals
My branch/I recognise that the current proposals represent a minor improvement to the protections included in the April 2006 Regulations, which came into force on 1 April this year. To that extent, we/I do not oppose their introduction, pending the judicial review, as they would benefit some of our members/myself. Recognising that, UNISON has ‘noted’ them and not opposed your current consultation.
However, Toy Town branch/I does/do not believe that your amendments are sufficient to overcome the anger and lost morale amongst LGPS members, who now see themselves as the ‘poor relations’ of the public sector. Neither will they greatly assist the large number of LGPS employers faced with recruitment and retention problems. We/I continue to believe that our members in the LGPS/I should be given full protection, alongside civil servants, teachers, NHS staff, police and fire fighters and that such a course of action would be both just and equitable.
My members/I also believe that the current early retirement factors are punitive and in urgent need of amendment. In our/my view they should be updated as soon as possible.
While Toy Town UNISON branch/I therefore support the current limited proposed amendments, we would urge you to re-consider them to provide full protection of their 85 Rule rights to my members/me.
For Nottinghamshire UNISON reponse: click here
13 June 2006
NCC Restructuring: Chief Exec responds to UNISON comments
On 12th May, UNISON gave it's formal response to proposals to restructure the County Council. We have now received a response from Roger Latham, the Chief Executive, dated 6th June and this is set out below.
Dear Jill,
Restructuring proposals
I refer to your response to the restructuring proposals that were presented to County Council on the 18 May 2006. Your response raises a number of concerns about the proposals and my comments on those concerns are set out in the following paragraphs:
Chief Officers and Senior Managers have and will continue to keep staff involved and informed about the proposals, recognising that this is importanto staff morale. A number of workshops and briefing events on the structures have been held to ensure that staff are fully involved in the final proposals.
There is still a strong commitment to direct delivery of services as long as the quality, value and efficiency are comparable with other providers and that we are therefore able to demonstrate to the Council Tax payers that they are receiving good value. It is also important, that you recognise the Council is committed to delivering the Government's agenda, which involves greater community engagement and more provision of public services in partnership. The Council is moving towards a community leadership role as well as retaining a strong base of directly delivered services.
The structure for the senior managers has been agreed and was formally signed off by the Chief Executive on 26 May 2006. The report supporting the decision record sets out the changes which have taken place as part of the consultation exercise and the rationale for the decision.
The shortfall in the necessary savings for 2006/7 will be managed through the contingency monies that have been made available, to help with this and other budget reductions. lt is anticipated, therefore, that this shortfall can be met in 2006/7 without further budget reductions.
I note your concerns about the job descriptions for the senior management posts. However, they are generic job descriptions which will be supplemented by individual duties and responsibilities and person specifications before they are finalised. I will keep your concerns under review and will look to reduce any areas lacking clarity. Any additional reward will be matched by clearer and additional accountabilities and job size. All jobs will be independently evaluated by Hay.
The Council has not abandoned equality as a principle and is applying it to get the best available people for the Chief Officer posts. To this end, the Strategic Directors of Children's and Adult's posts have both been advertised nationally and are subject to a competitive appointment process. That process is based entirely on merit and not gender or ethnicity.
Turning to the departmental issues that you have raised, I would make the following comments:
Adult Social Services - this is a very good point and the final structure has been amended to take account of your comment regarding the independence of the Welfare Rights Service.
Resources - I have already addressed the general issue of direct service delivery and privatisation is not currently on the Council's agenda for Resources functions. Elected members are confident that, working together with the Trade Unions and staff, the service can be changed to reduce costs, whilst still meeting the Council's needs.
Human Resources - the duties of the Heads of Service have been revised following the consultation period. The idea of having HRLG collectively responsible for a number of strands may blur accountability and we must bear in mind that HRLG has no decision making powers, it merely advises the Service Director HR. I do not think this would be an appropriate reporting line.
Property - I agree that there are still some boundary issues to be discussed around the service demands such as supply of school places and the property solutions which rest with Strategic Property. lt is intended through the job descriptions and business plans that the lines of responsibility will be clearly defined.
Communities:
Education Client Services: These sit within Children and Young People and not within Communities Department. Whilst Communities will continue to work closely with Education, it has been considered better to keep the trading services separate from the responsibility for policy and finance. The same approach will be applied in due course to the Nottinghamshire Integrated Transport project proposals with Education taking responsibility for the budget for school transport as well as taking decisions regarding policy and changes to service requirements.
Conservation/Country Parks: This is an issue which has given rise to a good deal of comment from within the Department which have welcomed the proposal to better integrate work on Country Parks with the Council's wider countryside agenda which currently sits within the Environment Department. Proposals have been considered at CMB who made a recommendation to me that the Conservation Section, currently within Environment, should be transferred in total into the new Culture Services of the Communities Department where it will sit within an integrated service area with Country Parks and related activities. This, I believe, will ensure that our work on countryside related activities is managed in an integrated manner. There will still be the need for the Conservation Team to work across the organisation, making essential inputs to the development of new strategic projects and continuing to provide advice through to the planning service.
Strategic and Environmental Services: You are right in identifying that there is an option here that could see these additional Property related services move to the Resources Department. However, in the early reports to Council it has been proposed that some further work will be undertaken to examine the best ways of managing trading services provided by the Council for the future and ahead of that Review it is considered better to maintain the services in their current location. This decision would also make the existing task of integrating the other resource services more manageable and could, if necessary, be considered as a second phase.
Highways: The Nottinghamshire Integrated Transport Centre proposals do suggest that Fleet Management in particular could be better provided through this new arrangement and the report to Cabinet in July will make reference to that. In relation to Workshops, whilst there is an important connection here, there are other factors which govern the future location of Workshops and this will require some second phase work to determine the preferred location.
Other comments - I agree that we must ensure workloads are manageable within the new structure. I have already commissioned Hay to do some work on the top level structure and they have provided their commentary and risk analysis taking account of the experience in other local authorities. I have also agreed that we will review the structure within a twelve month period which should also include a review of workloads.
I understand your concerns about the proposed tier by tier approach making it difficult to comment on the structure as a whole. However, it is a pragmatic solution to ensuring that there are sufficient senior managers in post to define the rest of the structure to meet the Council's needs.
I hope, over the next few months, we will be in a position to finalise the rest of the structure so that you will be able to comment on the proposals in more detail. I also trust that we will continue to work constructively together using the enabling process, the vacancy protocol and the redeployment process to minimise the uncertainties the disruption and the number of redundancies required.
Yours sincerely
Roger Latham
Chief Executive
Dear Jill,
Restructuring proposals
I refer to your response to the restructuring proposals that were presented to County Council on the 18 May 2006. Your response raises a number of concerns about the proposals and my comments on those concerns are set out in the following paragraphs:
Chief Officers and Senior Managers have and will continue to keep staff involved and informed about the proposals, recognising that this is importanto staff morale. A number of workshops and briefing events on the structures have been held to ensure that staff are fully involved in the final proposals.
There is still a strong commitment to direct delivery of services as long as the quality, value and efficiency are comparable with other providers and that we are therefore able to demonstrate to the Council Tax payers that they are receiving good value. It is also important, that you recognise the Council is committed to delivering the Government's agenda, which involves greater community engagement and more provision of public services in partnership. The Council is moving towards a community leadership role as well as retaining a strong base of directly delivered services.
The structure for the senior managers has been agreed and was formally signed off by the Chief Executive on 26 May 2006. The report supporting the decision record sets out the changes which have taken place as part of the consultation exercise and the rationale for the decision.
The shortfall in the necessary savings for 2006/7 will be managed through the contingency monies that have been made available, to help with this and other budget reductions. lt is anticipated, therefore, that this shortfall can be met in 2006/7 without further budget reductions.
I note your concerns about the job descriptions for the senior management posts. However, they are generic job descriptions which will be supplemented by individual duties and responsibilities and person specifications before they are finalised. I will keep your concerns under review and will look to reduce any areas lacking clarity. Any additional reward will be matched by clearer and additional accountabilities and job size. All jobs will be independently evaluated by Hay.
The Council has not abandoned equality as a principle and is applying it to get the best available people for the Chief Officer posts. To this end, the Strategic Directors of Children's and Adult's posts have both been advertised nationally and are subject to a competitive appointment process. That process is based entirely on merit and not gender or ethnicity.
Turning to the departmental issues that you have raised, I would make the following comments:
Adult Social Services - this is a very good point and the final structure has been amended to take account of your comment regarding the independence of the Welfare Rights Service.
Resources - I have already addressed the general issue of direct service delivery and privatisation is not currently on the Council's agenda for Resources functions. Elected members are confident that, working together with the Trade Unions and staff, the service can be changed to reduce costs, whilst still meeting the Council's needs.
Human Resources - the duties of the Heads of Service have been revised following the consultation period. The idea of having HRLG collectively responsible for a number of strands may blur accountability and we must bear in mind that HRLG has no decision making powers, it merely advises the Service Director HR. I do not think this would be an appropriate reporting line.
Property - I agree that there are still some boundary issues to be discussed around the service demands such as supply of school places and the property solutions which rest with Strategic Property. lt is intended through the job descriptions and business plans that the lines of responsibility will be clearly defined.
Communities:
Education Client Services: These sit within Children and Young People and not within Communities Department. Whilst Communities will continue to work closely with Education, it has been considered better to keep the trading services separate from the responsibility for policy and finance. The same approach will be applied in due course to the Nottinghamshire Integrated Transport project proposals with Education taking responsibility for the budget for school transport as well as taking decisions regarding policy and changes to service requirements.
Conservation/Country Parks: This is an issue which has given rise to a good deal of comment from within the Department which have welcomed the proposal to better integrate work on Country Parks with the Council's wider countryside agenda which currently sits within the Environment Department. Proposals have been considered at CMB who made a recommendation to me that the Conservation Section, currently within Environment, should be transferred in total into the new Culture Services of the Communities Department where it will sit within an integrated service area with Country Parks and related activities. This, I believe, will ensure that our work on countryside related activities is managed in an integrated manner. There will still be the need for the Conservation Team to work across the organisation, making essential inputs to the development of new strategic projects and continuing to provide advice through to the planning service.
Strategic and Environmental Services: You are right in identifying that there is an option here that could see these additional Property related services move to the Resources Department. However, in the early reports to Council it has been proposed that some further work will be undertaken to examine the best ways of managing trading services provided by the Council for the future and ahead of that Review it is considered better to maintain the services in their current location. This decision would also make the existing task of integrating the other resource services more manageable and could, if necessary, be considered as a second phase.
Highways: The Nottinghamshire Integrated Transport Centre proposals do suggest that Fleet Management in particular could be better provided through this new arrangement and the report to Cabinet in July will make reference to that. In relation to Workshops, whilst there is an important connection here, there are other factors which govern the future location of Workshops and this will require some second phase work to determine the preferred location.
Other comments - I agree that we must ensure workloads are manageable within the new structure. I have already commissioned Hay to do some work on the top level structure and they have provided their commentary and risk analysis taking account of the experience in other local authorities. I have also agreed that we will review the structure within a twelve month period which should also include a review of workloads.
I understand your concerns about the proposed tier by tier approach making it difficult to comment on the structure as a whole. However, it is a pragmatic solution to ensuring that there are sufficient senior managers in post to define the rest of the structure to meet the Council's needs.
I hope, over the next few months, we will be in a position to finalise the rest of the structure so that you will be able to comment on the proposals in more detail. I also trust that we will continue to work constructively together using the enabling process, the vacancy protocol and the redeployment process to minimise the uncertainties the disruption and the number of redundancies required.
Yours sincerely
Roger Latham
Chief Executive
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)