Question from Tim Prater to 22 July Full Council Meeting: Officer Bonuses [updated with answer]

4.15.00pm BST (GMT +0100) Fri 16th Jul 2010

Question by Mr T Prater to the Leader of the Council:

Will the Leader accept that the statement of the Chief Executive in writing to staff on 12th January 2009 informing them they would receive just a 1% pay rise but adding that "The highest paid of our colleagues, the Chief Officers Group, have decided not to take any bonus next year in recognition of the financial situation we all face." has caused upset amongst staff who now see from the 2009-10 accounts that some Chief Officers did take bonuses in 2009-10 totalling around £53,000, albeit for performance in 2008-09.

Will the Leader explain how the Chief Executive could make a statement to staff which was not true as it was written, explain what the real intention and meaning of that statement was, assure staff that there will be no Chief Officer bonuses in the accounts for 2010-11, and offer an apology to all KCC staff who may feel that the authority said one thing on officers bonuses and then did another.

Answer given at Full Council meeting, 22 July:

"I think Mr Prater has confused his dates which I will clarify in this answer.

"I do admit that Peter Gilroy's statement to staff could have been better worded. There was certainly no intention to mislead staff but because the wording was not explicit it was open to misinterpretation.

"Let's make one thing quite clear - performance reward monies can only be paid to individuals after the completion of the year to which they relate. The payments made to Chief Officers in 2009-10 relate to performance in 2008-9 and this is where much of the confusion lies.

"The intention of the Chief Executive's statement was to make staff aware that Chief Officers would not be considered for any payments relating to their performance during 2009-10 - this will be apparent in next year's statement of accounts. Chief Officers will not be receiving any performance pay for the current financial year, 2010/11, either as will be evidenced in the accounts published in the summer of 2012.

"I hope that this clarifies the situation and I would like to apologise to staff who may have felt misled."