Chief legal officer of Peterborough City “failing’ her six-month probation.

[Jimkana]

https://www.cambsnews.co.uk/news/peterborough-city-council-dismisses-110000-a-year-legal-chief/14500/

I saw this and wondered how many top civil servants fail probation. It's interesting that the quotation marks have been put on failing, as if insinuating that there are other reasons for her dismissal.

I have worked in places where junior employees are promoted from very lowly positions to VERY senior roles without even an additional certificate of participation in any field other than that they are favoured by those in seniour management.

And as much as I hate to say this, in all the cases I have seen, the favoured colleagues have been white, and those overlooked for promotion have been black. In some cases, some of these people have been promoted several rungs of seniority higher than even their senior colleagues.

So even if I'm not privy to the details of this case, I can't help wondering if Rochelle Tapping has been treated unfairly.

That aside, surely, it would make more sense to give her support during the probation period to ensure she succeeds rather than sack her? What do you think?

How independent would the independent panel be in reality?

That's the problem with governance. Inadequate organisations expect them to fix things so they can carry on as they like or achieve things that aren't in their remit. And they really, really don't like being told No - especially if the governance lead tells them that, for example, something cannot be done and they're bound by Nolan Principles to ensure it isn't shuffled under the rug and it has to be reported.

It's interesting that the entire report she's written is pointing out failures of governance & procedure when describing the faulty process they've used to get rid of her.

She’s in a highly political role and many people come a cropper when trying to work with politicians without enough experience. Looking at her career it’s her first leadership role; being the deputy and supervised (and potentially a bit shielded) will have been different. It’s a real skill and monitoring officer roles are hard work.

The article also references a disciplinary, so it sounds more like something happened and rather than have to go through that long process they’re just ‘falling’ her probation as a way to exit her.

Yes it’s slightly unusual for a senior role to be exited in this way, but if the issue was true, then it’s good they have taken this decision and not just let her keep her role and cost the tax payer a small fortune.

I’ve got no idea what happened here, but what support can you give the most senior person in a function in an organisation to ensure they succeed?

With a second in command or more junior you could implement a Performance Improvement Plan or organise additional training but with the CLO, who is going to have the knowledge or skills to administer the PIP or to determine what training is required and whether the CLO has appropriately benefited from it?

It’s pretty common in very senior levels for there to be zero tolerance for perceived poor performance and for people to be moved on quickly. This may be by offering them a large settlement package or as in this case by failing probation but it’s fairly unusual for them to go through the normal disciplinary hoops of warnings, capability processes etc.

As I said previously, I do not know what happened here. But in another case (which I don't think hit the news) the senior officer in question was let go during probation after about 30 allegations of bullying landed and the next tier of officers down were all looking for other jobs. It is not something I personally approve of, but a failed probation can be the easiest and fastest (and least costly) route.

I don't think probation in a role like this would be unusual though failing it might be. The salary is OK but not massive for somebody with, as she seems to have 7 years on the Roll.

If she feels she wasn't supported and that race, sex or both were a factor then, irrespective of her short service, she can take them to a Tribunal for unfair dismissal. In that case it'll all be performed in public.

OTOH if she's been properly 'severed' we'll never know.

Worked for a while with a bloke who'd had a career as a lawyer and later CEO in Local Government. He never tired of telling us how exposed senior staff in Local Government were to the powers of councillors and to politics. This went on to a well worn thing about how, as Civil Servants, we were feather bedded in such matters having recourse to managers up to Permanent Secretary level who were, at least back then, relatively immune to being stabbed in the back by politicians.

That massive conflict of interest (workers union) and her access to the whole of the organisations inner workings (meeting notes legal strategy) could be one reason. One of her main functions will be assissting in HR problems, the removal of staff etc.

The role can be filled by outsoursing at 110k thats about looking for a professional rate of £55 per hour

In the end it will be that she was telling the managers something they did not want to hear. If they got rid of her because she was doing her job too well she is likely going to have a whistleblower protection case