An investigation into the controversial appointment of its new town manager has found Hadleigh councillors had shown apparent bias against members of the military, women and an existing employee (now deceased).

Controversy raged when it emerged councillor Carol Schleip admitted she was prejudiced against ex armed forces personnel. Full story here.

It was also alleged by councillors on the recruitment panel at subsequent council meetings that former councillor Angela Gregg had shown sexual discrimination because she asked if it would be good idea to employ a man to balance up the genders in the office.

The panel, made up of councillors, Peter Gower, Brian Loftus and Bill Wilson, provided no evidence to back up their conclusions.

Nor did they make any mention of councillor Gavin Talbot's disappearance during the selection process meeting to take delivery of white goods, yet still casting a vote in preference of Ms Tye.

Some of Hadleigh's dirty wahing coming out

The panel has not explained how Cllrs Schleip and Talbot remain on the staffing sub committee, despite finding it apparent 'that not all panel members had the appropriate skills, training or experience to be involved in this process.'

Cllrs Gower Loftus and Wilson found Cllr Schleip while had not broken the law by admitting prejudice against a veteran who had seen action, she had breached the Armed Forces Covenant.

Cheryl Tye, who had been acting as town council manager since Andy McMillan had resigned, was subsequently given the job ahead of another highly qualified candidate.

Ms Tye resigned in February this year after being off sick. She died in a cycling accident in Norfolk earlier this summer.

The trio concluded that Ms Tye was an armed forces veteran, yet no evidence of that has ever been made public, nor mentioned in the interview process.

She never mentioned any armed forces service on her Linked In profile or CV, and when she and the council were asked for details, none were forthcoming.

The panel also concluded that a lack of proper written procedure had led to the situation.

A whistleblower provided Nub News with a recording of the meeting which provided evidence of wrong-doing and poor procedure by councillors. We were not contacted by the panel to assist in their review.

The findings from the review will be presented and discussed at full Hadleigh town council meeting next Thursday.

Leaving meeting to take in white good not mentioned in review

Hadleigh council review in full

On 17th March 2022 Full Council voted to fully review the recruitment process for the appointment of the Town Council Manager position which took place in late 2020. Including allegations of discrimination and prejudice. Once the review is completed the Panel will report their findings to the Full Council along with recommendations to ensure best practice in future recruitment processes.

The Terms of Reference and the panel members were agreed at the Full Council meeting held on 12th May 2022.

Panel Members: Councillor Gower; Councillor Loftus; Councillor Wilson

Panel Remit

•  To review the recruitment process in relation to the appointment of the Hadleigh Town Manager position between November 2020 and January 2021.
•  To identify if their was any evidence of prejudice or discrimination by anyone involved in the selection process.
•  If there is evidence of prejudice or discrimination what action was taken, if no action was taken the reason.
•  To identify any improvements in the recruitment procedure.
•  To advise if the outcome was influenced by any prejudice or discrimination that may have occurred.
• Methodology
• The panel reviewed-

Questionnaires were sent to the four members of the recruitment panel. (appendix 'A')

Advertisement

Having reviewed the job advertisement the panel found no issues.

Interview Panel Members Councillor Beggerow; Councillor Gregg; Councillor Talbot; Councillor Schlep

Sifting Process

The recruitment process was undertaken during the early stages of the Covid 19 pandemic. It must be borne in mind that there was a great deal of fear around this time as this was a new disease of which little was known. One member of the panel was considered to be medically vulnerable so was unable to attend the Council office to review the applications for the post. It was decided that each member of the Panel would be provided a pack containing all of the application packs in order to carry out a sifting process. Each Panel member allocated a score to each applicant against an agreed scoring matrix.

There were five applicants for the post and it appears that all five were subsequently interviewed. The matrix scores for the paper sift are not available and assumed destroyed after the process was completed.

Were the applicants 'blind marked'?

Paper Sift Recommendations

1. Applications are 'blind marked'
2. A marking matrix is used and retained until the end of the successful applicant's probationary period

Interview Panel

The Interview Panel consisted of all members of the Staffing Sub Committee; no other Councillor was given the opportunity to put themselves forward to sit on the Panel. There was no requirement for any Panel member to have any relevant experience or training. The interviews were carried out via 'Zoom' due to the restrictions in place due to the Covid pandemic

Following the completion of all interviews a discussion took place during which it appears that an agreement was reached to reduce the candidates to a choice between the agreed two strongest candidates. This was between the now successful candidate and a male candidate.

At this point the Panel appears to have moved away from the agreed scoring format with one Panel member introducing a mark of 4+ and another using three additional criteria. Neither scoring format has been agreed by the Panel and indeed the three additional criteria appear not to have been tested during the interview process.

Of the three additional criteria applied two are subjective and extremely difficult to evidence.

1. How badly do they need the job?
2. What knowledge did they have of our Council processes?
3. What would be the impact of change on current office efficiency?

Indeed it could be said that this displays a bias towards the applicant who was at the time an employee of the Town Council.

There was some discussion on the merits or otherwise of each of the two remaining candidates. One Panel member challenged the use of additional criteria, but the consensus was to appoint the current staff member as Town Council Manager on a vote 3:1.

Interview Panel Recommendations

1. All Panel Members must have relevant experience or qualifications
2. All Councillors are invited to apply to become panel members
3. Agreed questions are put to all interviewees
4. No additional questions may be asked other than to expand a response to an agreed question

2

1. No additional criteria may be added to that agreed prior to the interview process commencing
2. Only when the top two candidates are tied on scores can additional criteria be applied such as:
3. Asking each candidate an additional question
4. Applying 'Affirmative Action' as permitted in the Equality Act 2011(to address an imbalance of a
5. 'Protected Characteristic')
6. Scoring Matrix and written notes retained for the period of the successful applicants probationary
7. period.

Conclusion

The recruitment Process for the post of Town Council Manager (TCM) was conducted during extremely difficult times due to the Covid 19 Pandemic. The use of Zoom to conduct meetings and interviews was a new medium to the Town Council and its Councillors. That said there were inconsistencies and poor practice throughout the recruitment process due in part to the lack of any written policy or procedures.

It is apparent that not all Panel members had the appropriate skills, training or experience to be involved in this process. The lack of any written policy or procedures led to this situation and it is assumed that all Panel members had the best interest of the Council and the applicants in mind when they volunteered to be a member of this Panel.

In reviewing the processes carried out it is clear that some biases were displayed by some members of the Panel. These include apparent bias against members of the military and women and an apparent bias towards an existing employee. Of the three prejudices displayed only one may be deemed unlawful, contrary to the Equality Act 2011, that of sexual discrimination. Whether or not it was unlawful could only be decided by a Court and as the person who may have been discriminated against was successful then it would be unlikely to succeed.

On the issue of discrimination against a member of the Armed Forces, this is not unlawful but goes against the Military Covenant that this Council has signed up to. Having reviewed Panel members' recollection of the discussion it appears that the comment was made as part of a wider discussion on the merits of employing members of the Armed Forces and that in the correct role could be an asset to an organisation. Indeed, the final scoring had the two candidates tied and it was after discussing additional criteria introduced by one member that a final decision was arrived at.

As previously stated, there was apparent bias displayed by more than one member of the panel, but it is the view of this Review Panel that the result of the Selection Panel was not influenced by the display of sexual discrimination or discrimination against a member of the Armed Forces but may have been influenced by a bias towards an existing member of staff. It should be noted that the selected candidate was an Armed Forces Veteran so negating the allegation that a bias against Armed Forces Veterans.