Agenda item

1.      The Panel were provided with two reports in advance of their meeting. The first report set out the Commissioner’s proposed job description and person specification for her Chief of Staff and explained the recruitment process. The second report advised the Panel that, at the conclusion of the selection process, the Commissioner proposed to appoint Mr Michael Stepney. The panel were satisfied that these two reports provided them with the information set out in Schedule 1(9) of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011.

2.      The Commissioner explained at the Panel meeting that she had decided on the title of Chief of Staff rather than Chief Executive as she felt this title more accurately described the role, but that Mr Stepney would discharge all the statutory functions of a Commissioner’s Chief Executive as set out in the 2011 Act.

3.      The Panel heard from Mr Sandher who had been nominated by the Panel, in response to the Commissioner’s invitation, to sit as an observer at the final selection process. Mr Sandher said he felt the selection process had been carried out fairly and objectively. Mr Sandher advised the Panel that he had not been present when the proposed decision was made but from what he had seen the proposed decision was reasonable.

4.      The Panel sought clarification about those involved in the long list process and were advised by the Commissioner that she had undertaken this exercise with the two individuals who also conducted the final interviews. She confirmed that all decisions were unanimous. Panel members also asked whether any candidates were known to members of the interview panel. The Commissioner said that 3 of the final shortlist were known to her and 2 candidates were known to other interview panel members but no member knew Mr Stepney. The Commissioner confirmed that all previous knowledge of candidates was declared but that all were judged just on the evidence presented during the selection process.

5.      Panel members asked whether the prospect of direct management of non-operational staff as a result of Stage 2 staff transfers had been discussed with Mr Stepney at interview. The Commissioner said she had reached no conclusions on stage 2 transfer proposals but that the she had raised the topic at interview and she was confident that Mr Stepney would be able to lead and manage whichever staff were under the control of the Commissioner. Panel members also asked about the future of two Advisers appointed by the Commissioner and were reminded by the Commissioner of the assurance she had given at the previous Panel meeting – that all posts and roles would be reviewed once the Chief of Staff was in place.

6.      Panel members asked about the vetting process, particularly in the light of the recent appointment process for a Youth Commissioner. The Commissioner assured the Panel that a more rigorous process had been adopted including checking, with Mr. Stepney’s permission, any social media accounts.

7.      Panel members asked Mr Stepney to explain further his range of skills and their relevance to this role and he gave evidence of his career background and his ability to lead, to innovate and to manage in situations where there was uncertainty, restricted resources and conflicting priorities. In response to Panel questions, the Commissioner assured the Panel that his ability to introduce new ways of working had been thoroughly tested during the recruitment process.

8.      RESOLVED that the Panel concluded that the Commissioner had undertaken a thorough recruitment process and that Mr Stepney was a suitable person to appoint as her Chief of Staff.