Council approach to terminating chief executive lawful but lessons can be learnt, report finds

The processes surrounding the departure of Southend-on-sea Council's chief executive in October 2023 were appropriately planned, with suitable external legal advice obtained, an internal audit report has concluded.

The local authority's cabinet decided in May 2023 that the council's then chief executive, Rob Polkinghorne, should be asked to step down.

At a meeting of the Appointments and Disciplinary Committee in June 2023, the chair and council leader verbally raised the issue of Polkinghorne’s employment after the committee had completed the business it was convened for.

Negotiations between Polkinghorne, who joined the council in October 2022, were later completed and reported to a meeting of the Appointments and Disciplinary Committee in July 2023, which then approved the terms and severance payments agreed.

Commenting on the internal audit report, Southend’s monitoring officer concluded that the decision to mutually agree with the chief executive termination of his employment "was appropriately governed and approved, in accordance with the Council's Constitution".

They also said the governance of the process leading to the recommendation in the July report was "overall robust" and that the decision made by the committee was sound.

However, they also criticised how some of the minutes of the Appointments and Disciplinary Committee meetings (including the meetings in June and July) are yet to be reported to and approved by the committee or reported onto council.

"This represents a change in practice that has weakened the governance of the Committee and the approval of minutes of the previous meeting should happen consistently to ensure that there is clarity and agreement over the decisions that were made by the Committee," they said.

The report set out four lessons learnt from the circumstances. The first suggested that although the council's constitution allows for the chair of a meeting to allow or introduce additional items of business, "this option should only be pursued in very exceptional circumstances”.

It added that any meeting of the committee should ordinarily be provided with a written report at least five working days in advance of a meeting with appropriate information to take any decisions that are being asked of it.

Secondly, the report suggested that where additional items of business are to be introduced, the necessary subject matter expert officers should be in the meeting.

Thirdly, the report said that non-subject matter expert officers in the meeting should advise the chair that additional items of business need the appropriate support and guidance from relevant subject matter expert officers.

Finally, the report said that members of any committee asked to consider additional items are “empowered not to do so”, without the necessary report, evidence, support and guidance from relevant subject matter expert officers.

In those circumstances, the report urged members to decline to consider such additional items and request that the meeting be reconvened with the appropriate information and support available.

Adam Carey