Council creates three new roles at £93k a year
CONTROVERSY OVER SENIOR OFFICER POSTS
THREE new senior city council officer jobs, each with a salary of £93,666, have been approved in a controversial vote.
The creation of the posts at a time when the authority is still dealing with massive funding cuts was criticised by opposition councillors.
But they were outvoted by the council’s ruling Labour group after angry clashes at the authority’s monthly meeting.
The new posts being added to the senior officer team at the Guildhall include a new digital manager, an economic development and regeneration manager and a learning and skills manager.
The latter is a statutory role overseeing school improvement which the council is required to have by law. It is currently being carried out by an interim manager.
Labour leader Councillor Steve Brady said all three posts were necessary to bolster the authority’s senior management team.
“It is absolutely right we get the right people in senior positions to provide leadership and make sure the authority can cope with the increasing demands it faces,” he said.
Cllr Brady pointed out the council currently had nine fewer directors and senior managers on its books than it did a decade ago.
He said the new economic development manager post would be effectively funded from increased retained business rates from enterprise zones across the city.
He said the new digital postholder would lead the council’s ongoing switch to digital-based service delivery with the overall aim of reducing costs.
But Liberal Democrat leader Councillor Mike Ross said: “This is not what members of the public expect or want to see happening.”
His Lib Dem colleague Councillor Abi Bell said the move was badly timed with councils across the country looking to cut salary bills rather than adding to them.
Conservative leader Councillor John Fareham said he was unhappy with the way the decision to add new posts to the senor management team had been made.
“We feel the process was less than satisfactory, rather opaque and lacking in clarity,” he said. “We turn up for a meeting to be told, ‘we’re £400,000 better off than we thought, so let’s spend it on more senior officers’.”
The 28-22 vote in favour of the new appointments came after a Lib Dem amendment against the move was defeated by the same margin.
■ Angus Young’s opinion on the controversial new roles: Page 26