Gavin Webb: Libertarian councillor for Stoke & Trent Vale

As is the norm, I’ve just discovered from the local newspaper, The Sentinel, and not the City Council the latest on the Chris Harman debacle – that he is to receive over £65,000 as a golden goodbye.

All that I’ve received as a councillor is the following statement, hot off the press from the city council’s wonderfully expensive propaganda machine, and as you can see there is no mention of a final settlement figure:

Today is Chris Harman’s last working day with the council. Chris has worked with Stoke-on-Trent City Council since February 2007, most recently as interim chief executive. During that time the council has made significant improvements and been judged as ‘improving strongly’ – the highest rating from the independent government watchdog, the Audit Commission.

In leaving now, Chris has agreed to waive his right to notice in his current role, delivering an immediate financial saving for the Council.

Chris also holds a substantive post of Assistant Chief Executive and the Human Resources Committee has today agreed that, to meet the council’s contractual obligations, Chris will receive a payment equivalent to his notice entitlement for that post.

Chris said: “With a new Chief Executive coming it is time to move on and it is only fair for the new person to choose his own deputy. I have enjoyed my time with Stoke-on-Trent and have made many new friends.”

Councillor Paul Shotton, chair of the HR Committee said: “Chris Harman has worked hard for the people of Stoke-on-Trent. Today’s decision by the HR Committee gives the incoming Chief Executive the opportunity to review senior management arrangements, potentially delivering further savings.”

Tom Macartney, North Staffordshire Regeneration Partnership managing director and the council’s Director of Regeneration will deputise for chief executive John van de Laarschot, until he is in post.

Mr Macartney will work together with council leader Ross Irving, the cabinet, councillors and the council’s senior managers during this transitional period.

So, he is generously waiving his ‘right’ (rights – a concept often bastardised) and is leaving early which has led to an immediate financial saving?  Of what?  How much?  This council leadership continues to treat the rest of us councillors like fools and I don’t like it.

Earlier today I emailed Dawn Hewins, the Head of Human Resources, requesting that in the event of a payoff, that a copy of Harman’s contract and information as to who was responsible for drawing up and signing it off, be sent to all councillors.  Is anyone holding their breath?

A week ago I emailed council leader Ross Irving requesting an explanation on what precisely was happening over the absence of city council Interim Chief Executive Chris Harman:

Dear Councillor Irving

I write to request from you a full briefing – copied to all councillors, local media and posted on stoke.gov.uk – on the situation regarding Chris Harman and the post of Chief Executive.  It has now been nearly three weeks since the new Chief Executive was appointed and as an elected councillor, I have yet to receive any information relating to Chris Harman and any requests he has made for payment from the City taxpayer.

I hope you’ll agree with me that it is not acceptable to keep councillors in the dark and this matter does nothing to engender trust between non-executive and executive councillors, or indeed between the City Council and the public.

Based on my own intuition and the information I’ve seen in the press, I feel that it would highly unacceptable to make any sort of payment to Chris Harman.  The matter seems very straightforward to me – if he wishes to leave the employ of the City Council voluntarily, he deserves no payment.  Of course, I may be entirely unfair or unreasonable in this belief, but until I and other councillors – and therefore the public – has a full understanding of the facts, the only reasonable conclusion that one can come to is to say ‘No’ to any payoff.

I am aware that other councillors are considering calling for a special meeting of the council to demand an explanation from you about this issue and I would happily support such a call.  However, it is not a necessary course of action if you merely provide elected members and the public with information on what is happening.  If you refuse, you are leader of nothing but a secretive cabal that is no better than what went on before.

Councillor Paul Shotton is also included in this email and, as Chair of the Human Resources Committee, maybe he could shed some light on the situation.

Kind regards

Gavin

Gavin Webb, Councillor
Libertarian for Stoke and Trent Vale
07949 026660

Unfortunately, Councillor Irving hasn’t seen fit to reply.

A few days later, I and twenty-one other councillors signed a motion – moved by Peter Kent-Baguley – calling for an Extraordinary Council Meeting to enable all councillors the opportunity to debate the matter:

This Council deplores the lack of information from the Council Leader regarding the absence of the Interim Chief Executive following the appointment on 29th September 2009 of the new Chief Executive, Mr John van de Laarschot, and the secrecy surrounding the issue and further is totally opposed to a pay-off being awarded to the Interim Chief Executive, Mr Chris Harman.

Tomorrow, the Human Resources Committee will meet to discuss whether or not Harman should receive a payoff.  It is speculated by the Sentinel that a compromise agreement may be met to pay Harman £74,000.

As a backbench councillor who has not been party to any of the discussions on this matter, including the Human Resources meeting on 2 October; and who has received no more information other than what I’ve read in the press, I stick by my original view that there should be no payoff for Harman.

If he is ‘compensated’ as per his contract, then there are very serious questions to be answered as to who was responsible for drawing up and agreeing that original contract.

The big question then will be, how many other contracts like Harman’s have been agreed upon by city council officials?