Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Grimston.

There were no disclosures of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28th February 2008 were submitted and signed.

The Committee received a report of the Managing Director setting out the proposed new organisational structure. The Managing Director explained the background to the report which had led to the proposed structure being developed. He said there had been positive feedback from senior managers on the conceptual framework. Whilst not all staff were in total agreement, overall, there was a great deal of support and staff had made constructive comments on the detail within the blocks which the Managing Director said he had agreed with in most cases. He explained that there would still be further consultation to do as the detail would need finalising, however, in order to go into more detail, the senior level had to be in place. The Managing Director said he expected the new structure to be rolled out over the next few months, although investigating and amending job descriptions could take some time and a timetable would be produced. He said the front line services were relatively straight forward; however, the support services were more complicated. This was because the situation would evolve depending on aspects that could not be anticipated at this stage, for example, the transfer of further services into shared services. The Managing Director said there were also complex issues regarding the financial responsibilities and a balance was needed to ensure sufficient capacity so progress was still made whilst recognising that in the longer term there would need to be more thinning.

One Member commented on Councillors becoming community champions and asked where in the structure would there be staff to support and drive Councillors in this community work and encourage community cohesion. The Managing Director said this would be driven from the Partnerships and Policy section of the structure. He said a lot of active work and consultation was already carried out which would continue in supporting and facilitating the legislation on community engagement and that driving this from the centre of the organisation could make a big difference. The Managing Director said specific issues should continue to be dealt with by the relevant specific departments and Portfolio Holders.

Another Member asked for further clarification on the consultation with senior managers and said that she had heard that the approach had worked well. The Managing Director said the structure had been well received by senior managers a lot of whom had said they had not seen such a long term approach before. He said that they had had an open mind and only questioned detail and approximately 95% of those comments had been agreed and incorporated. The Managing Director had said there had been a degree of unrest due to the clear message in the report that just because people had helped get the Council where it was now, this did not mean that they were right for the future. Although the framework was accepted, much would depend on its successful implementation.

A Member asked the Managing Director to further explain the uncertainties on the Resources side of the structure particularly with regard to another councils coming into shared services. The Managing Director said originally, when three councils were looking into shared services; it would have been possible to have a director responsible for all shared service sections. Since Dacorum Council pulled out of the scheme, a director's position could not be justified with only two councils. He said there were very early stage discussions with another Hertfordshire authority and if this came to be, a director could once again be justified. The Managing Director said at this stage the uncertainties were simply being flagged in order to demonstrate the need for flexibility on this side of the structure.

One Member commented that before 2003 there was no structure in the organisation. He said the change manager had established the current structure which had seen minor changes made by the Managing Director. The Member said the stock takes had always raised the fact that the Council was over managed as it needed to be to improve. He said staff were therefore not surprised and the effective consultation had been welcomed. The Member said there could have been different ways to organise the structure but the proposed structure was sound. The Managing Director said it had not resulted in quite as deep a cut as he had first thought as the Council would need to be at the forefront of new agenda.

The Chair commented on the office accommodation and asked if there were any solutions in sight. The Managing Director said the Town Hall building in particular consisted of small closed offices and did not promote team work. He said, very often, staff did not know other staff in their own departments as they did not see them. He said there were thoughts of taking down corridors to create wider more open spaces which would still not be ideal, but would create a better situation that the current. There was, however, work being carried out on the civic quarter and possible public uses of the Town Hall. Any building remodelling would need to await the outcome of that work.

The Committee received a report of the Head of Human Resources containing the conclusions of the Travel Allowance Review group and proposals for a new travel allowance policy. The Head of Human Resources said travel allowances had not been reviewed for four years and this review had been prompted by the green travel plan and the introduction of car park charges. She said the introduction of pool cars would reduce the cost of casual car user mileage allowance and result in a lot of current essential car users being able to use them. The Head of Human Resources said 31 posts would lose their essential car allowance which could mean a loss of £3,000 for each individual. In certain areas where there were skill shortages, a market supplement would be investigated in order to retain staff. The Union had been consulted and were happy with the proposals and all staff who would lose the essential car allowance would be consulted. The estimated minimum saving of the new policy would be £15,800 which took into account the purchase of pool cars. The policy also recognised bicycle users and offered a cycle allowance to encourage this where appropriate.

A Member asked why a bicycle allowance would be offered. The Head of Human Resources said it would be an incentive to reduce congestion and be in line with the green travel plan.

The Chair asked who would be responsible for putting fuel in the pool cars. The Head of Human Resources said there were a number of options: it could be whoever took the car home; it could be the responsibility of an administrator or staff could claim the money back. The Portfolio Holder for Human Resources said another option would be to have an agency card used at certain petrol stations.

A Member asked if essential car users received a mileage allowance as well as £3,000. The Head of Human Resources said they received a small mileage allowance simply to cover fuel. The Member also asked for clarification on whether pool cars would be allocated to a small group of staff or not. The Head of Human Resources said it would depend on the circumstance and the number of staff, she said it would not be appropriate for two or three people to constantly use the pool car. The Portfolio Holder for Human Resources said there would be a requirement on the Council to ensure that the car was not used mainly by one person as that would be a tax liability. He said there would have to be a close watch and record of the use of pool cars.

One Member asked in which departments there were skill shortages. The Head of Human Resources said this was mainly with planners, building surveyors, HR officers and although there was not a high turnover of Environmental Health Officers, they were hard to replace.

Another Member mentioned that essential car users did not have to pay the car park charge and asked for the rationale to be explained as he thought this could seem unfair on staff who did have to pay. The Head of Human Resources said essential car users had to bring their cars to work in order to carry out their job and that it would seem unfair to ask them to pay to do so. The car parking charge was not included in the national allowance that was paid and to offset the parking charges would involve negotiating a local agreement.