CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHORITY

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE BOARD MEETING

held in the Com­munity Centre, Nethy Bridge on Fri­day 28 June 2019 at 9.30am

PRESENT

• Peter Argyle
• Car­o­lyn Caddick
• Deirdre Fal­con­er
• Pippa Had­ley
• Janet Hunter
• John Kirk
• John Lath­am
• Douglas McAdam

• Elean­or Mackintosh

• Xan­der McDade (Con­vener)

• Wil­lie McKenna
• Ian McLar­en
• Dr Fiona McLean
• Wil­li­am Munro
• Dr Gaen­er Rodger
• Derek Ross
• Judith Webb

In Attend­ance:

• Grant Moir, Chief Executive
• Dav­id Camer­on, Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Services
• Alix Hark­ness, Clerk to the Board

Apo­lo­gies:

• Geva Black­ett
• Anne Rae Macdonald

Wel­come and Introduction

1. Xan­der McDade, the Con­vener, wel­comed every­one to the meet­ing in Nethy Bridge.
2. Apo­lo­gies were noted from Geva Black­ett and Anne Rae Mac­don­ald. John Kirk was expec­ted to arrive late.

Mat­ters Arising

1. There were no mat­ters arising.
2. Action Point Arising: None

Board Fees Review Recom­mend­a­tion (Paper 1)

1. Xan­der McDade, the Con­vener, intro­duced Paper 1 which high­lights the recom­mend­a­tion of adopt­ing option B as set out in the paper, as recom­men­ded to the Board by the Staff­ing & Recruit­ment Com­mit­tee. He made the fol­low­ing points:

   a) The inten­tion was always to review the policy a couple of years after imple­ment­a­tion. b) Three key prin­ciples were draf­ted at the start of the review: 1. to review the effect­ive­ness of the cur­rent policy; 2. To ensure Board Mem­bers remu­ner­a­tion closely aligned to the time spent per­form­ing the role; 3. That the policy com­plied with the agree­ments Board Mem­bers have with the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment which set out a min­im­um of 2 days a month and max­im­um of 3 days a month. c) The res­ults of the first round of con­sulta­tion were a sur­prise, how­ever, these were used to guide the rest of the con­sulta­tion pro­cess. d) The pro­cess involved two rounds of con­sulta­tion with the ini­tial views being used to scope two options, A and B. These options were then con­sul­ted on in the second round. e) The pro­pos­als were developed fol­low­ing care­ful ana­lys­is of Board/​Com­mit­tee meet­ings, read­ing papers, and oth­er core duties. f) There had been strong board sup­port dur­ing the second round of con­sulta­tion for option B with 85% (12 people) of respond­ents sup­port­ing it and this was sub­sequently recom­men­ded by the Staff­ing & Recruit­ment Committee.

2. Car­o­lyn Cad­dick, Chair of the Staff­ing and Recruit­ment Com­mit­tee added the fol­low­ing points:

   a) Try­ing to retain some good bits of exist­ing policy. b) Deduc­tions to fees had been per­ceived as neg­at­ive by a lot of Board Mem­bers. c) Many Board Mem­bers put in more than 36 days. d) Con­tracts with the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment are 2 – 3 days/​month. e) Good com­prom­ise now presen­ted by proposals.

3. Xan­der McDade referred to the pro­posed changes to the meet­ing cal­en­dar and the gen­er­al con­sensus was that Mem­bers were con­tent with these proposals.

4. John Kirk arrived at this point.

5. The Board con­sidered the detail in the Paper and dis­cus­sions took place around the following:

   a) A com­ment made that the con­sulta­tion pro­cess had been pos­it­ive, trans­par­ent and would sup­port Option B. b) Con­cern raised on how the reduced value of 50% for attend­ance at Com­munity Coun­cil meet­ings would work for Board Mem­bers who have a dual man­date of also being a Loc­al Coun­cil­lor. Con­cern that it could be seen as double fund­ing. The Con­vener explained that ini­tially the pro­pos­al had been not to pay Board Mem­bers with a dual man­date for their attend­ance at com­munity coun­cil meet­ings as it was viewed that on bal­ance this would be part of their Coun­cil­lor role, how­ever fol­low­ing feed­back from two mem­bers this addi­tion­al recom­mend­a­tion incor­por­ated of 50% value was a com­prom­ise. Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices con­firmed the valid­ity of this con­cern and advised that it could be seen extern­ally as double fund­ing as it could be per­ceived that a coun­cil­lor already had that par­tic­u­lar respons­ib­il­ity. He went on to advise that some jus­ti­fic­a­tion for recog­nising Com­munity Coun­cil attend­ance is through the Board stand­ards and Code of Con­duct, which spe­cifies that a mem­ber of the Board is always per­ceived as a mem­ber and the inab­il­ity to choose to wear one hat or anoth­er. He urged Board mem­bers to con­sider this risk of poten­tial per­cep­tion of double fund­ing and, should the pro­pos­al go ahead, be clear in adop­ted policy that the recog­ni­tion of attend­ance at such meet­ings reflects that Board mem­bers must rep­res­ent and sup­port the Author­ity irre­spect­ive of oth­er rep­res­ent­at­ive or elec­ted roles they may have. c) Board Mem­ber com­men­ted the issue of dual man­dates had nev­er pre­vi­ously aris­en and they felt mem­bers with a dual man­date should receive the same remu­ner­a­tion for attend­ance as oth­er Board Mem­bers. Mem­ber com­men­ted that they viewed Option B as too com­plic­ated, and that the Board Groups/​Committee’s mem­ber­ship list should be revis­ited. The Board Mem­ber raised that some Board Mem­bers were not on any out­side bodies/​groups and that they felt it was not appro­pri­ate for the Con­vener to decide who attends spe­cif­ic events and meet­ings when this attend­ance affected what gets the Board Mem­ber paid. The mem­ber sug­ges­ted that every Board Mem­ber should get paid for 36 days per year with no deduc­tions and once a year Board Mem­ber attend­ance is pub­lished, so that if a Board Mem­ber it is evid­ent if a Board mem­ber attends 28 or 42 meet­ings that year. Recom­mend­a­tion made that the sys­tem could be simple, that there was no need for fin­an­cial deduc­tions and recog­ni­tion that as a pub­lic body the author­ity are respons­ible to tax pay­ers and have a duty to be open and trans­par­ent. The Con­vener advised that they had expec­ted a 36 day flat rate to come out as a pre­ferred way for­ward at the con­sulta­tion stage but it had not. The Con­vener added that annu­al Board attend­ance at meet­ing is already pub­lished in the final accounts. d) A sug­ges­tion was made to look at the nom­in­ees on the Board Committees/​Groups again to ensure that there would 114 days avail­able to allow all Board Mem­bers an equal oppor­tun­ity to access­ing them. In addi­tion the need for a list of con­fer­ences and for the Board as a group to decide who attends as opposed to the Board Con­vener tak­ing that decision. The Con­vener advised that most Board Mem­bers had already com­mit­ted to six days or more on top of the 30 days and that as set out in the imple­ment­a­tion plan, any Board Mem­bers who were not cur­rently com­mit­ted to an addi­tion­al six days would be giv­en the oppor­tun­ity to volun­teer for a full six days before the imple­ment­a­tion on 1^st Octo­ber. He fur­ther drew member’s atten­tion to the pro­vi­sion in the new policy which set out a new more trans­par­ent sys­tem for decid­ing which Board Mem­bers would attend con­fer­ences. e) A con­cern was raised that Option B was not equit­able and that trust­ing Board mem­bers was para­mount. The Con­vener advised that Option B was based on trust, but that as a pub­lic body we had to show we were account­ing fully for pub­lic funds. f) A com­ment made that it was unfair if one Board Mem­ber who per­formed 28 days got the same level of remu­ner­a­tion as anoth­er who had per­formed 40 days. If there was no deduc­tion sys­tem in place how could the fees be clawed back? The need to be open and trans­par­ent was emphas­ised. g) A com­ment made that attend­ance at Board and Com­mit­tee meet­ings should classed as core com­mit­ments with attend­ance at con­fer­ences over and above that. h) A con­cern raised that some Board mem­bers who volun­teered for less groups and/​or atten­ded min­im­al con­fer­ences would be dis­ad­vant­aged. The Con­vener advised that the pur­pose of Option B was not about dif­fer­ent mem­bers doing dif­fer­ent things, it was about board mem­bers com­mit­ting to the core 30 days with the extra 6 days as option­al and not expec­ted. He went onto add that if attend­ance fell below 30 days a mech­an­ism would be put in place to mon­it­or that. i) A sug­ges­tion was made that sub­sti­tutes for each Board Group should be rein­tro­duced. j) A com­ment was made that it needed to be recog­nised that as a res­ult of some Board Mem­bers’ oth­er com­mit­ments it would be too dif­fi­cult for them to have the same flex­ib­il­ity to attend events that col­league Board Mem­bers might be able to. The Con­vener advised that this was one of the bene­fits of Option B as it did not expect Board Mem­bers to com­mit more than the core 30 days if they were unable to. k) A com­ment made that oppor­tun­it­ies would need to be made avail­able to Board mem­bers in their vicin­ity and that an appeal sys­tem should be put in place. The Con­vener advised that these were fair com­ments. l) A sug­ges­tion was made to review the import­ance and weight­ing of attend­ing dif­fer­ent meet­ings and for the Board to have an oppor­tun­ity to debate who should sit on each group. The Con­vener advised that the weight­ing had been reviewed threw the con­sulta­tion pro­cess and drew the Board’s atten­tion to the updated list­ing of Board Mem­ber­ship on Groups doc­u­ment that he had tabled that morn­ing. m) Recog­ni­tion that where mem­bers may duplic­ate by attend­ing the same meet­ing, such as an elec­ted Board Mem­ber and Loc­al Coun­cil­lor at a Com­munity Coun­cil, they may make an agree­ment between them which com­munity coun­cil meet­ings they will each attend. Recog­ni­tion that in addi­tion to pre­par­ing inform­a­tion in their role as Loc­al Coun­cil­lor they would also need to pre­pare a CNPA brief­ing. n) A com­ment made that it was vital that com­munity coun­cils be kept informed. o) A com­ment made that the cur­rent sys­tem was set up to pro­mote and pri­or­it­ise attend­ance at core meet­ings (Plan­ning and Board) and that it was import­ant these con­tin­ued to be pri­or­it­ised. The mem­ber expressed sup­port for the cur­rent sys­tem. The Con­vener advised that there was pro­vi­sion for this in Option B. A com­ment made that some Board Mem­bers may have more rel­ev­ant know­ledge and exper­i­ence to sit on cer­tain groups and this should be a con­sid­er­a­tion. p) Dis­ap­point­ment raised with the cur­rent sys­tem dock­ing fees for non-attend­ance at a core meet­ing while some Board Mem­bers reg­u­larly attend addi­tion­al meet­ings and this is not recog­nised in the cur­rent sys­tem. The Con­vener agreed that this was a fair point that came out of the recent consultation.

6. The CEO made the fol­low­ing points:

   a) Board remu­ner­a­tion was the equi­val­ent of 3.5 mem­bers of staff. b) Attend­ance at Board and Com­mit­tees are the Board’s stat­utory func­tions and these must be pri­or­it­ised. c) It is import­ant to keep the flow of inform­a­tion to com­munity coun­cils. d) It’s about sim­pli­city and hav­ing an ele­ment of trust to make sure attend­ance at meet­ings are at the core of any Board fee policy.

7. The Con­vener advised that were Board Mem­bers to only be remu­ner­ated for attend­ance at Board and Com­mit­tee days only this would amount to 25 days per year.

8. The Board con­tin­ued to dis­cuss the paper and made the fol­low­ing com­ments and observations:

   a) A con­cern was raised that some Board mem­bers might choose to attend a con­fer­ence instead of a board meet­ing but encour­aged to hear that there would be a safety net there to pick that up if that scen­ario were to arise. b) A Board Mem­ber reit­er­ated that the policy was intro­duced to encour­age attend­ance at core meet­ings to meet quor­um require­ments. The Con­vener advised that non-attend­ance would still be recor­ded. c) Board Mem­ber expressed it was import­ant to have a fair, open and trans­par­ent sys­tem. d) Mem­bers wish­ing to con­trib­ute addi­tion­al days over the min­im­um expec­ted levels should be seen as being positive.

9. Car­o­lyn Cad­dick made the fol­low­ing comments:

   a) Had not been on the Board when the cur­rent policy was intro­duced. b) Has seen people who per­form a con­sid­er­able num­ber of extra days get­ting pen­al­ised for miss­ing the occa­sion­al meet­ing. c) There will be strict rules for swap­ping out attend­ance at core meet­ings to attend non stat­utory meet­ings. d) With regards to attend­ance at com­munity coun­cil meet­ings, a way of recog­nising Loc­al councillor’s dual man­date was addressed in the revised policy. e) Going for­ward the Board should revis­it who rep­res­ents the Board on dif­fer­ent out­side bod­ies f) The policy should be about com­prom­ises and reward­ing people for their efforts.

10. The Con­vener put for­ward a motion to go with the recom­mend­a­tion for Option B as per the recom­mend­a­tion in the paper. This was seconded by Car­o­lyn Caddick.

11. Peter Argyle put for­ward an amend­ment to pay fees at a stand­ard 36 days each year, with require­ment to have officers make trans­par­ent, account­able, open, report­ing arrange­ments to sup­port pay at that flat rate. This was seconded by Fiona McLean.
12. Wil­li­am Mun­ro pro­posed an amend­ment to the motion which stip­u­lated that those attend­ing a com­munity coun­cil meet­ing would be paid at the same rate no mat­ter what back­ground they were nom­in­ated onto the Board. There was a quick show of hands for this amend­ment to the motion and as there was only two in favour it was decided not to pro­ceed with this amend­ment to the motion on the table.
13. The Board pro­ceeded into a vote with mem­bers asked by roll call to express their vote for either the motion or amend­ment. The res­ults were as follows:

NAME	MOTION	AMEND­MENT	ABSTAIN
Peter Argyle	√
Car­o­lyn Caddick	√
Deirdre Fal­con­er	√
Pippa Had­ley	√
Janet Hunter	√
John Kirk	√
John Lath­am	√
Elean­or Mackintosh	√
Douglas McAdam	√
Xan­der McDade	√
Wil­lie McKenna	√
Ian McLar­en	√
Fiona McLean	√
Wil­li­am Munro	√
Gaen­er Rodger	√
Derek Ross	√
Judith Webb	√
TOTAL	10	5	2

1. The Board agreed:

   a) The recom­mend­a­tions of the Staff­ing & Recruit­ment Com­mit­tee as set out in para­graphs 2, 3 and 4 of the paper; b) Minor mat­ters relat­ing to the imple­ment­a­tion of this policy shall be del­eg­ated to the Dir­ect­or of Cor­por­ate Ser­vices and Chief Exec­ut­ive with the agree­ment of the Con­vener and Deputy Convener.

2. Action:

   i. Issue of final policy papers to sup­port implementation.

Date of Next Meeting

1. Next form­al Board meet­ing to be held on 20 Septem­ber 2019, Dee & Spey Meet­ing rooms, CNPA HQ.
2. This meet­ing con­cluded at 11.00.