COUNCIL chiefs in York have awarded a £77,000 pay-off to a manager – only days after giving him the job, The Press can reveal.

The senior social services employee started a new post with City of York Council on November 1 last year, only for councillors to agree a “golden-goodbye” package a mere five days later, on November 6.

Officials tried to keep the move secret after the matter was decided by five councillors in a closed-doors meeting. But details have now been obtained by The Press.

Councillors were told that the inevitable media and public interest in the issue would lead to “high-profile and damaging publicity” if it were made known.

Bill Hodson, the council’s director of housing and adult social services, said the council should try to avoid lengthy and embarrassing hearings and instead agree to an early-retirement deal.

The employee, whom The Press has agreed to refer to as Mr X, left the authority last week and the council is now recruiting a replacement, on up to £66,000 a year.

In a written report to the council’s urgency committee on November 6, Mr Hodson said: “There is mutual agreement that it would be in the best interests of both the council and the post-holder for a new appointment to be made.”

Mr Hodson said the decision to opt for a pay-off had been backed by chief executive Bill McCarthy.

The council’s adult social services came in for criticism last year and on October 13, councillors agreed to a managerial shake-up in a bid to make the department “fit for purpose”.

As part of that restructure, Mr X, who is in his 50s, was given a new job title and new responsibilities, effective from Saturday, November 1.

Four days before that, on October 27, the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) gave the council a damning rating of one out of four for adult social services.

Linda Christon, regional director of the CSCI, said she was “uncertain” of the council’s ability to perform, and said York was “significantly off the national pace” in some areas. Five days after formally taking on the new role, councillors agreed to an early-retirement package for Mr X, consisting of more than £30,000 direct pay-off; £26,000 in pension benefits; and three months pay in lieu of notice, at £7,000 a month.

Mr Hodson’s report says Mr X would only accept the package if the pension rights were included.

Had a pay-off not been agreed, Mr X would have gone through “capability proceedings”, but because his job was so new, he would have to have been given time to prove whether he could do it or not.

The proceedings could have taken more than a year and Mr Hodson said other officials would have needed to be involved.

How The Press obtained a copy of the report

On November 7, the day after the meeting, The Press requested an edited copy of the report, accepting that the employee’s name and exact job-title would be withheld.

City of York Council refused.

It claimed that the report contained personal data and that releasing it at all would breach a confidentiality agreement.

The Press appealed, asking for an edited version that would reveal the nature of the decision without identifying the employee.

The council again refused, and the matter has now been referred to the Information Commissioner for arbitration. The Press has now obtained a copy of the report on the condition that we do not name Mr X at this time.

Timeline

•Oct 13, 2008 – The council’s staffing and urgency committee agrees to restructure the social services department, due to fears it is not “fit for purpose”. New job titles and responsibilities are agreed. Mr X is allocated to one of the roles.

•Nov 1, 2008 – The new roles come into effect.

•Nov 6, 2008 – The council’s staffing and urgency committee meets again, and is told Mr X is the wrong man for the job. It agrees a pay-off totalling £77,670.

‘It’s wrong’

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “This situation appears to show mishandling by the council in its human resources policy. Nobody wants these bungled appointments where someone is appointed then leaves after only a few days.

“There is something wrong at the council if they cannot do better than this.”

The council

OFFICIALS at City of York Council argued that The Press should not publish this story, saying it would be damaging to the individual concerned.

The authority declined to comment, except to say: “The council has a duty to respect and protect the personal data of members and ex-members of staff.”