A key council job post has been deleted from the management structure – because no one could be recruited to it on the lucrative salary being offered.
The role of executive manager for commercialisation – vacant for 15 months – was one of two posts which South Holland District Council has struggled to fill, along with planning and building control manager.
The salary and overhead costs for the executive manager post were £76,880. The wage band for the position was between £56,457 and £69,401, shared between Breckland Council and SHDC on a 60/40 basis. South Holland district councillors were told that there had been “particular difficulty” in recruiting to it.
The council’s head of paid service, chief executive Anna Graves, said: “There are a number of potential reasons for this difficulty. Anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that this type of post tends to be found in much larger authorities with significantly enhanced salaries.”
Members agreed to delete the post and reinvest the budget elsewhere in the staffing structure.
The executive director for commercialisation, Julie Kennealy, is leaving the council on September 3.
The £105,912 post, another shared management role, is currently being advertised.
Mrs Graves told members: “The commercialisation agenda remains critical to the council’s plans and in particular its transformation programme. As such, I am focussing on early recruitment to this post.
“I also consider that finance, inward investment, strategic planning and housing/property are a strong suite of services that should remain within the commercialisation directorate.”
The council is still looking for a planning and building control manager, a role created following a management restructure last summer. A lack of suitably qualified people is proving the sticking point.
A spokesman said: “The workload is currently being managed successfully within the team and this will continue until a suitable applicant is recruited.”
Councillors voted in favour of a two per cent pay increase for 2016/17.
The independent remuneration panel had recommended no change unless a staff pay increase should be awarded, in which case the same rate should be applied to councillors’ allowances.
However, councillors felt it was “not appropriate” to compare the two roles – different staff grades received different levels of pay award; staff were entitled to incremental pay increases; and the proposals did not take into account the recent changes in councillor pensions.
