Agenda item

6.1       Members discussed whether they should recommend to Governance Committee that no substitutes should be permitted on the Pension Board; that all representatives should be permitted substitutes; or that substitutes should be allowed for only some representatives (i.e. the Trade Unions).

6.2       Marion Kelly pointed out that, whilst it would be relatively straightforward for some Pension Board members to nominate substitutes (e.g. the Unions and Brighton & Hove City Council); it would be considerably more difficult for the other members because they represent a number of organisations or individuals who would need to be canvassed before a substitute could be appointed. There would inevitably be an expense involved here. The Chair noted that Governance Committee should be made aware of any cost implications before making its final decision on this matter.

6.3       Councillor Brian Redman (BR) commented that allowing substitutes risked undermining the effectiveness of the Pension Board, as substitute members, even if they were fully trained, would not have been party to previous Board debates and would inevitably lack an understanding of the interpersonal dynamics that had developed between members. He therefore opposed having any substitutes.

6.4       Councillor Kevin Allen (KA) stated that his preferred option would be to permit substitutes. Brighton & Hove City Council could readily appoint an experienced substitute, and this would ensure that the council was represented should Cllr Allen be indisposed.

6.5       Angie Embury (AE) stated that Unison did not intend to routinely send a substitute for her, but that she was content for other members to have substitutes.

6.6       Sue McHugh commented that it would be tricky to identify a substitute for her as the representative of 90+ employers, and doing so would involve a disproportionate amount of work for a very limited benefit. However, she had no objections to other members having substitutes.

6.7       Tony Watson stated that he saw no pressing need for substitute members, and thought that the issue could have been avoided had the Trade Unions lobbied harder for an additional employee representative on the Board. However he was not opposed to members having substitutes.

6.8       The Chair, Richard Harbord, stated that his personal preference was for there to be no substitutes. However, he was prepared to accept substitutes for all voting members provided it was understood that they were to be used only in extremis and were not to be viewed as alternates. All Board members agreed that should substitutes be permitted, they must not be viewed as alternates.

6.9       David Zwirek commented that his preference was for all members to be permitted substitutes. He would be content with only the Trade Union representatives having substitutes if this was the preferred option; but he could not support the position that no substitutes should be permitted, as it was essential that employees were represented should he be unable to attend a meeting.

6.10     Pension Board members were unable to agree unanimously on a position regarding substitutes, but did agree to refer the matter to Governance Committee, with all members agreeing to accept Governance Committee’s decision.

6.11     RESOLVED – that Governance Committee be asked to determine definitively the issue of allowing substitutes on the Pension Board, bearing in mind the comments made by Pension Board members.