Skip to main content

{{ root_page.title }}

2 March 2021

Extraordinary Board Meeting

RBWM staff pay award

The Board voted and all members present agreed to a 2% for a pay award for AfC RBWM staff.

HR business case - internally managed service

The Chair reminded the Board that transitioning to an internally managed service with payroll and occupational health being bought in from a third party had been discussed at Board meetings for three years. The business case, including the additional information requested by the Board at their last meeting, was being presented again and a unanimous decision was required if this option was now to be progressed.

The Board was asked to consider whether it is the right thing to do for the strategic long term and whether the benefits outweigh any risks. Associate Director Workforce introduced the paper and explained that her team had looked again at the concerns raised at the previous Board meeting, particularly around some of the costs in the paper, including the projected savings. There is an opportunity to re-start many of the processes which are confused across the boroughs.

All Board members supported the proposal to transition to an in-house service. It was recognised that there are risks but these are outweighed by the benefits.

Advice on risk of a Section 114 notice

The Board had received two papers, one with specific legal advice giving direction and suggested actions if needed and a draft advisory note produced by Chief Operating Officer which contained actions that AfC will continue to take to support each council. The Chair explained that the three councils, along with most others, all face financial challenges and AfC are impacted by these challenges and budget gaps. The Chair explained that the Board needs to ensure it is discharging its responsibilities in line with the legal requirements of being directors on the Board.  

The Chief Operating Officer reminded the Board that it is important that they make decisions which are in the best interests of the company, particularly for those who are Council appointed directors. It is expected, however, that the Board decisions will align with the Councils. 

The Chief Operating Officer informed the Board that it is important to keep a focus on how AfC can work proactively to help ensure a Section 114 is not necessary. In Richmond and Kingston the main pressure remains as high needs and DSG. In RBWM there is more risk on the General Fund side. The Board has accountability in understanding and tracking the deficit plans. There needs to be a focus at Board meetings on this with sufficient strategic discussion time on the agenda with the Board holding the Directors and Chief Operating Officer to account. 

After discussion it was agreed that there would be merit in testing against the solvency test.