John Metcalfe,

John Metcalfe looks pretty certain to be new Isle of Wight council CEO

Members of the Isle of Wight council’s Employment sub-committee are recommending current Deputy Managing Director, John Metcalfe, for the role of Chief Executive Officer.

As reported last week, the Employment Committee met on Thursday to make their final deliberation on who should be recommended for the role.

Recruitment consultants, Gatenby Sanderson, who, at a cost of £19,000, were brought in by the council to find the right person for the job, received 26 applications for the post.

The recruitment campaign went out to the open market, following a decision by the full council in September.

Recommended by current MD
Current Managing Director, Dave Burbage, shared the news with staff in his weekly newsletter, say the County Press.

It was Dave who’d originally recommended John Metcalfe for the role, when the changes to senior staff structures were approved in April. At that point, Dave announced he would leave the council in March 2016.

MD resigned early
However, he told councillors later in the year that if they voted to go out to the open market to find his replacement rather than promote the current deputy, he’d leave at Christmas 2015 instead.

Dave resigned from his post at the end of September.

Dave Burbage told OnTheWight today,

“I am delighted that following a rigorous recruitment process culminating in interviews by the Employment Sub-committee, on Thursday it was agreed to recommend that John Metcalfe, our deputy managing director, should be offered the post of chief executive.

“The recommendation goes to Full Council next Wednesday 25 November. John is a very able officer and I know will make a great success of the role.”

Source

Image: © Isle of Wight Council

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
74 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ThomasC
24, November 2015 3:17 pm

No point rushing any new blood into the IWC executive, now is there?

I trust the £19k recruitment consultants’ fees *won’t* be payable as the selected candidate wasn’t found by them.

That’s how it works in the private sector world. I trust it’s no different in this situation?

sam salt
Reply to  ThomasC
24, November 2015 4:31 pm

This matter could have been settled in February when Dave Burbage recommended John for the role. It appears from an article published in February by OTW that two senior councillors wanted to attract applicants from outside the IWC. The following is a quote from that time: “Cllr Gordon Kendall, councillor for Brading, St Helens and Bembridge, has quit his role as Executive member for Human Resources, Organisation… Read more »

Steephill Jack
Reply to  sam salt
24, November 2015 8:36 pm

There’s no way that this post could have been filled without an open competition and all that equal opportunities stuff.
You can’t create a post in local government and just fill it with your old mate.

Niton Wight Satin
24, November 2015 3:28 pm

The point of raising the salary offered to £125,000 was to “attract new talent” from outside of the council. Mr Metcalf is pretty much operating as the boss now isn’t it? So will we end up paying him goodness know how much more money for something that hasn’t come to pass, ie getting new, fresh talent? Of course, Mr Metcalf may consider this and not take the… Read more »

Wighton
24, November 2015 5:11 pm

I don’t believe that he is the best person for the job. We most definitely need some “outside” scrutiny of the Council and a person with good advocacy talent for working with Central Government, neither of which are skills that he seems to possess. We’re in a crisis; we need someone who knows how to do proper crisis management. Who were the other candidates?! Out of that… Read more »

ThomasC
Reply to  Wighton
25, November 2015 7:55 am

Get yer Freedom of Information Act request in to find out!

snapper
24, November 2015 5:16 pm

So, the Council has chosen John Metcalf as its next CEO having offered £125,000 to get the right person. Now that’s a surprise! This has all the makings of a done job with Mr Metcalf stepping neatly into Dave Burbage’s shoes and assured of a nice hike in salary. Never again will I believe the IW Council when it pleads poverty for the umpteenth time after paying… Read more »

Albert Street
24, November 2015 5:44 pm

I can only assume that Mr Metcalf would have had to go through the recruitment process and this would suggest the £19 is payable to the consultants. I am staggered by the abject stupidity of this administration. This goes to prove that the lunatics are running the asylum. Save money get rid of 50% of the councillors immediately with a view getting rid of all of them… Read more »

phil jordan
Reply to  Albert Street
24, November 2015 6:07 pm

Albert Street:

Let’s get something straight.

The decision to go out to recruitment was made by the Employment Committee…. a cross chamber group consisting of 2 Independents, 2 conservatives, 1 labour and 1 sandown independent party… NOT the administration.

Furthermore, it was the SAME committee that decided which candidate was chosen…..NOT the administration.

You need to retract your comments…..

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  phil jordan
24, November 2015 7:49 pm

Actually Phil, it was the September Full Council that made the ‘decision’ to support a ‘recommendation’ from the Employment Committee. Only Full Council or Executive make decisions.

And it was not the Employment Committee that made the appointment which will be recommended to tomorrow’s Full Council, but a sub-committee of it which added in the Leader and Deputy Leader.

Facts, not spin

phil jordan
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
24, November 2015 9:57 pm

geoff: pedantics maybe but….. the committee made the decision (recommended in your words) …Full Council ratified it. Full Council is NOT the administration. The employment committee *chose* the candidate (I also chose my words carefully) with the addition of, as you say, the leader and deputy….that will also be put to Full Council tomorrow to accept or reject. Full Council is NOT the administration. None of that… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  phil jordan
25, November 2015 7:21 am

Nothing but spin and you aren’t even very good at it, Phil At no point have I said that any of this is an administration ‘decision’, just as it is not an employment sub-committee decision. The latter can (as you well know) only make recommendations. On this matter Full Council is the decision maker and the administration does NOT control Full Council. Far from it with a… Read more »

phil jordan
Reply to  phil jordan
25, November 2015 8:17 am

geoff: I think you seem to be agreeing! At no point in this whole process were the administration involved in making an administrative decision on the CE post. Full Council, taking the employment committee decision to recommend (does that sound better?) going out to recruit, did that. And I think it’s pertinent, is it not, to state that Full Council did not ask the employment committee to… Read more »

Albert Street
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 10:48 am

No not ignoring your comments just busy.

Are you suggesting that the administration has nothing to do with this process? If so what is the purpose of the administration?

In my opinion, you can not play the heads we win and tails you lose when it suits.

phil jordan
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 11:37 am

albert street:

Councillors, Lumley, Stubbings and my self have posted the information you need to understand the process that took place. I’m not sure what else can be said to you if you cannot comprehend that information.

Albert Street
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 12:02 pm

Still not answering the question, don’t bother I have all the confirmation I need.

Wighton
Reply to  Geoff Lumley
25, November 2015 9:04 am

Why were the leader and the deputy involved at all? To me, that supports the status quo (favouring John Metcalfe) and disempowers a more balanced committee. Surely there were some highly qualified people from the outside who applied?? I don’t like the direction that the officers (yes, the officers, not the Councillors) have taken the Council over the last ten years or so, with whatever the various… Read more »

BRIAN
Reply to  phil jordan
24, November 2015 7:56 pm

Question. Is this committee totally independent of the administration? Question. Does it set its own terms of reference or are these provided by the administration? Question. If the terms of reference are set by the administration, did they include the power to use external recruitment agencies? Not suggesting this is the case here but my last college advertised extensively at some cost for external candidates for post… Read more »

phil jordan
Reply to  BRIAN
24, November 2015 9:59 pm

Brian:

Question 1: Yes. (apart from having a minority of two members on it.)

Question 2: Terms of reference are NOT set by the administration.

BRIAN
Reply to  phil jordan
24, November 2015 10:45 pm

In which case, where is the oversight by the administration? Your answer implies that this committee could spend any amount of public funds during the interview process without recourse to scrutiny. Does this policy apply to other committees formed for various matters having authority to spend money as they see fit without scrutiny?

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  phil jordan
25, November 2015 7:24 am

Brian. The terms of reference are set by Full Council to whom the Employment Committee is accountable. As are all Council committees. Hope that straightforward answer helps.

phil jordan
Reply to  phil jordan
25, November 2015 8:21 am

….and NOT the Executive (the administration……)

Good point about scrutiny and Full Council Brian…..

By the way, Full Council also *approve* or not the annual budget….!

Alber Street
Reply to  phil jordan
24, November 2015 8:49 pm

I believe that Mr Lumley very clearly presents the facts below.

Facts over spin always gets my vote.

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 10:58 am

Aren’t the Leader and Deputy part of the administration? Were any other members of the committee part of the administration?? Maybe I missed something…. Metcalfe’s track record is not very good, and this was a genuine opportunity to find someone else.

billy builder
Reply to  Wighton
27, November 2015 11:35 am

A straw in the wind will always go in the direction the wind is blowing. If you want someone to do exactly what you say, you want that straw. If however you want someone to give the best possible advise, a straw is not what you want.

The question is, what were members looking for ?

phil jordan
Reply to  Wighton
27, November 2015 11:40 am

wighton:

“Aren’t the Leader and Deputy part of the administration?” …..YES

“Were any other members of the committee part of the administration?? ” ……NO

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 11:50 am

Thank you – that’s what I was clarifying – that the (leaders of the) administration was involved in the committee and had influence but the whole administration was not on the committee (as evidenced by the partisan make-up). Then who were the other members of the committee? (Or is that an FOI request)?

phil jordan
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 12:04 pm

apologies…. I am confusing myself!

There were two other Members of the committee that are part of the Independent Group….

phil jordan
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 12:10 pm

Wighton:

The employment committee is made up of:

Cllrs: Lumley (lab) (chair), Hutchinson (con), Gauntlett (con), Kendall (Independent), Baker Smith (Independent), Blezzard (independent sandown party)

A *sub committee* of that committee included the leader and Deputy.

Their recommendations were made to Full Council,who voted on Wednesday night, on this matter.

Hope that clarifies the position a bit better…

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 12:07 pm

Phil, so it was four (4) Island Independents on this employment committee of eight (8)? Is that right? I’m not even suggesting that the group voted as a block, but that is not representative. Well, as representative as we have with a Conservative central government at 37% of the vote.

That gives the Administration undo influence on such a small committee.

Wighton
Reply to  Wighton
27, November 2015 12:08 pm

*undue (autocorrect!)

phil jordan
Reply to  Wighton
27, November 2015 12:15 pm

The *sub committee* is not a formal committee… and does not sit on matters such as these usually.

The committee members number six usually….. two of which are Independent group members and part of the administration.

By the way, the Chair has a casting vote…

phil jordan
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 12:19 pm

By the way, formal committees have proportional representation as closely and accurately as is practically possible …dependent on numbers of impacting factors.

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 12:24 pm

Exactly. So when you make up a subcommittee (which I know is not a formal committee – I have more than a basic understanding of committee structures in central government and local government), and four of the eight are Island Independents, two of whom are in the Administration as Leader and Deputy, that’s an unfair balance. Though not “formal”, it is a *sub*committee with a LOT of… Read more »

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 12:36 pm

“Informal” but powerful subcommittees that are determining who the next chief executive is (not something relatively trivial like when the next fete should be) should ALSO be representative. This structure gave way too much power to the Island Independents as a group – even if they did not vote as a block – but even more power to the Executive with disproportional representation of the Administration on… Read more »

steve stubbings
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 12:50 pm

“Again, surely in the long-listing and short-listing process there were some stellar candidates from the private sector and/or other Councils?”

Really? Why?

billy builder
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:07 pm

Steve, so are you saying then that both the long-list and short-list was made up of no-hoper’s. If that were the case the whole process should have been rethought and restarted.

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:09 pm

Steve, so you are saying that out of – was it 26? – applications, there were no other reasonably standout private sector or public sector candidates, only enough to short list three? I have a lot of trouble believing that there weren’t a few good people out of 26, and shortlisting three out of long listing is too few for a job this big… The problem here… Read more »

steve stubbings
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:10 pm

Wighton,
Please see the minutes of the Extraordinary meeting of the Employment Committee which took place on 17 August. It may address some of your issues.

phil jordan
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:11 pm

Wighton:

You do seem to be missing the point that it is Full Council that makes the decision…?

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:14 pm

Bully Builder – spot on. If there really are too few, then you start over and readvertise. Also you review how and where you are advertising and make sure you are saying the right things in the advert itself to attract the right people… I saw the job advert somewhere (can’t remember where) and thought “does the Council know what kind of person they need right now?”… Read more »

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:17 pm

No, Phil, I’m not. That is almost a formality since they were not privy to the long-listing or short-listing process. The only thing that they can do is, what? – reject the recommendation and/or call into question the fairness of the procedure or the robustness of the search. But I would guess many of them had not thought that through and/or some may have been worried about… Read more »

steve stubbings
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:18 pm

Bully Builder…

Nice one, Wighton. ;-)

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:21 pm

Steve, I already looked at those minutes. That does not address the issues. You all seem to be not addressing the issue about the make up of the subcommittee having disproportionate number of Island Independents or that part of the Executive was on the subcommittee amongst other things. BTW I’m not a Tory and this is not political. I firmly believe that whilst certain procedures were followed,… Read more »

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:23 pm

Blame Apple, Steve. Sometimes it autocorrects just like it did earlier with “undo” and “undue”. I was agreeing with him/her so s/he knows it wasn’t an insult. In writing what you said comes across as potentially smarmy and/or insulting to BILLY, so maybe you should clarify that you were joking. Smiley faces can be passive aggressive as well, as British politeness often dictates.

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:26 pm

Steve and Phil – are you going to answer or comment on my questions etc publicly or keep skirting the issues? Why were there four Island Independents when you have much fewer than 50% of the Council membership? And why was Jonathan Bacon put onto the subcommittee etc etc. etc.???

steve stubbings
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:28 pm

Wighton
So, having checked the minutes you will have observed that the politically proportionate Employment Committee voted (unanimously) in regard to the composition of the sub committee. This is entirely in keeping with the constitution.
Fyi. I was not party to the decision taken by the employment committee on 17 August.

steve stubbings
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:45 pm

Wighton,
and there I was, thinking YOU were joking.

Sorry if I came across as smarmy and/or insulting.

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:49 pm

Steve, that Committee is not representative. Isn’t this right?? Mind you, sometimes it’s hard to be representive on small groups. Julia Baker-Smith Mr Robert Blezzard Mr Conrad Gauntlett Mr Stuart Hutchinson Mr Gordon Kendall Mr Geoff Lumley (Chairman) The subcommittee would have been more accurate with three Tories (again, I’m not a Tory) and three Island Independents. And NO Executive members. Didn’t both you and Jonathan Bacon… Read more »

steve stubbings
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 1:58 pm

Wighton you would need to engage with members of the Employment Committee to explore the rationale for the decision taken. As I have already stated, I was not party to the decision. How members vote, on all named-vote issues, is a matter of record. I’d be happy to discuss the process – and my involvement in it – in person with you anytime if that would prove… Read more »

steve stubbings
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 2:16 pm

Whipping power?!
I’m not sure you understand the process as well as you think.
I’ve already told you (twice!) that I was not party to the decision you are asking me to explain.
Let’s have a meeting about it. I’m guessing you’re around County Hall occasionally.

Wighton
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 2:25 pm

Yes, Steve, the ability to influence other Island Independents amongst others, particularly for the leader. Whipping in the larger sense of the word, and, again, your votes and Jonathan’s influencing the outcome, having demonstrated a “pro-Metcalfe” stance with a previous vote. I understand the process so there isn’t a need for a meeting. Sometimes politicians offer people meetings in good gesture; other times it has appeared that… Read more »

steve stubbings
Reply to  phil jordan
27, November 2015 2:37 pm

Wighton, now I’m puzzled. Just to be clear, are you suggesting that Jonathan and / or I went into the interview process having pre-determined our selection? And that the leader of the council subsequently influenced committee members of an Independent persuasion to vote in a certain way in order to secure that pre-determined result? If so, what role do you suppose was played by Gatenby Sanderson, the… Read more »

Wighton
Reply to  Wighton
27, November 2015 2:09 pm

I understand the process, Steve. That’s not the problem, and you are inferring it is. Why would you vote against advertising the role of Chief Exec (thereby making it an “internal” appointment to John Metcalfe), and then you and Jonathan (who also basically voted for giving it to John Metcalfe by voting against advertising) be put on the subcommittee? That subcommittee should have been with people who… Read more »

Wighton
Reply to  Wighton
27, November 2015 3:06 pm

I make no accusations of conspiracy, only questioning why both of you were appointed and how it radically changed th makeup of the subcommittee. You did demonstrate that you had it wanted to keep Metcalfe and not interview other people – and that your votes could have made a big difference in a close vote, especially in the long-listing process. You do have the power to whip… Read more »

mywifesheelsare2high
24, November 2015 5:54 pm

I think this appointment would be a big mistake.

bigj
24, November 2015 5:58 pm

125,000 negotiable
Has anyone asked how much he has agreed that he should be paid?

1 step closer to mainland rule
And don’t say it doesn’t serve them right

milly
24, November 2015 9:29 pm

Seems a sensible appointment under the circumstances.

Oh Island..
24, November 2015 10:50 pm

The previous head of Economy and tourism to now be the CEO? Our economy and tourism has benefitted from 1997 in what way? This gravy train, out of towner has merely presided over the rot and is surely a status quo appointment to help facilitate the Islands further decline. This candidate has mostly been in the position of shutting things down belonging to the council tax payer… Read more »

old bull
Reply to  Oh Island..
25, November 2015 11:02 am

Cheap does not mean value for money.

steve stubbings
25, November 2015 7:40 am

Whatever the council did here would have been questioned. We could have gone with a straight appointment of John Metcalfe without going through the recruitment process and been accused of ‘finding jobs for the boys’. As it is, full council (NOT the administration) decided to go out to the market. John Metcalfe went through the same rigorous procedure as every other candidate and is now recommended for… Read more »

Geoff Lumley
Reply to  steve stubbings
25, November 2015 9:28 am

Spot on, Steve. Succinct and to the point.

Man in Black
25, November 2015 10:03 am

This was the perfect opportunity for the council to bring in some fresh new blood, someone with a vision for the Island.

Instead they go with the same old, same old.

John Metcalfe may well know the ropes and the council’s situation intimately, but I’ll be looking out for any sings of his ambition to improve the Island.

I hope he’s preparing his acceptance speech.

billy builder
25, November 2015 10:51 am

So a leisure centre manager gets the top job. Obviously the top job in the council does not require professional expertise. This is a very sad reflection of the calibre of the IOW council.

old bull
Reply to  billy builder
25, November 2015 11:01 am

Could not have put it better myself.
Promoted beyond his capability in my view.

Have I got this right?
25, November 2015 11:49 am

…is this the same John Metcalfe who oversaw the “sale” of Ventnor Winter Gardens? Surely not…

bigj
Reply to  Have I got this right?
25, November 2015 6:03 pm

the winter Gardens wasn’t sold
it was given away
the sum of a pound is totally irrelevant

was it this same man?????
if so that does tie in with the complimentary comments of his allies just above
was it the same man though?????

Oh Island....
Reply to  Have I got this right?
25, November 2015 6:23 pm

And Ryde theatre, I’m sure there are more. I just wonder how these iconic places are not considered useful for the economy and tourism? They were only poorly managed and under-invested. Deliberately ignored figures and viability options so it could be lost off the books. With that outlook he is a perfect candidate to accept the Government cosh and make a princely sum in the process. Sigh.

billy builder
Reply to  Oh Island....
27, November 2015 3:48 pm

I heard that several years ago he tried to put Lidl into either Ryde Ice Rink or the Ten Pin Bowling building, one or the other. That would have made an iconic tourist attraction – not

Minnieb
25, November 2015 11:54 am

As someone who worked many years for the Council and experienced the [part of comment removed by moderator] of Metcalfe, I am staggered that no better candidate emerged. Very sad.

PeteM
25, November 2015 12:55 pm

Well this just about sums up the Islands future ! Our Prospective CEO/MD has NO proven past record of our despartately needed leadership and visionary skills.
I agree with the previous comment . A very sad day for the Island !

What we should have been brave enough to do was find another Joe Duckworth to shake some business sense into the IOWCC.

A.Pugin
27, November 2015 3:16 pm

All of this is very easily settled-we have a referendum on Europe next year, why not let him settle into the job (which wont take very long seeing as this is an internal appointment) and ask the question to island voters as to whether they have confidence or no confidence in his appointment? A separate ballot box could be provided outside of the the polling centre if… Read more »

beacher
27, November 2015 10:55 pm

A sad event for the island! Steve, Phil and wight on- interesting debate buts it’s a bit like trying to find out who should have bolted the stable door once the horse has bolted. Anyone who knows how these selection procedures are handled will be well aware the job descriptions / personnel specifications / recruitment agency terms of reference and interviews can be ‘arranged’ to preclude candidates… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined