The
Police and Crime Commissioner and the Candidate for the post of Chief Executive
Officer have been invited to attend this session.
A copy
of the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner’s report on the appointment
is attached.
A
document explaining the process to be followed at the Confirmatory Hearing will
be circulated separately.
Minutes:
The
Police and Crime Panel considered a report of the Office of the Police and
Crime Commissioner (OPCC) in regard to its proposed appointment of Mr. Paul Hindson to the post of Chief Executive Officer. A copy of
the report of the OPCC, marked ‘Agenda Item 3’, is filed with these minutes.
The
Chairman welcomed the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) and Mr. Paul Hindson to the Hearing. Officers and Panel members each
introduced themselves to Mr. Hindson.
The
Chairman outlined the process to be adhered to, taking those present through a
process document which had been circulated to all members.
The
Chairman invited the PCC to explain the recruitment process for the Chief
Executive Officer role and why he chose Mr. Hindson
for the post. The PCC stated that applicants were required to undertake a
psychometric test, be assessed by a Community Panel and attend a formal
interview. The PCC stated that Mr. Hindson was an
outstanding candidate who had successfully completed all aspects of the
recruitment process. In the view of the PCC Mr. Hindson
was extremely well qualified for the role as he had previously carried out
several senior jobs in the criminal justice arena including working for
Probation, he had been an advisor to Central Government and also had private
sector experience as well.
(The PCC left the room.)
The
Chairman invited Mr. Hindson to explain why he chose
to undertake the role of Chief Executive Officer and how he felt he was
qualified for the role. Mr. Hindson explained that he
was attracted to jobs which were about increasing
social value to the public, and that the role with the OPCC involved more
engagement with the community than his previous jobs. Mr. Hindson
said that he also felt the role would challenge him which was a positive. Mr. Hindson said that he felt he had the skills and experience
to carry out the role due to his previous leadership experience. Mr. Hindson stated that he would bring to the role a range of
qualities such as leadership skills, determination, creativity and the ability
to carry out tasks in a different way, and the ability to work collaboratively.
The Panel then
questioned Mr. Hindson regarding his suitability for
the post under the following key headings:
·
Professional
Competence;
·
Personal
Independence.
Arising from questioning, the Panel noted the
following points made by Mr. Hindson:
(i)
An example of Mr Hindson’s ability to
strategically plan was his work with the national development of Offender
Management. This work required him to write a strategy and visit prisons
promoting the work and dealing with issues that had arisen. As part of this
work Mr. Hindosn took account of potential
developments which were on the horizon and was prepared to adapt should
circumstances change.
(ii)
Mr Hindson preferred a collaborative
management style which involved providing clarity on other people’s roles and
what he expected of them. He also liked to help develop colleagues
professionally and encourage them to gain new skills.
(iii)
Mr. Hindson’s leadership skills were
further developed whilst carrying out a change programme for 2 private
companies, and whilst employed by Working Links he was required to manage
culture changes whilst governed by a strict statutory and contractual
framework. Whilst employed by Interserve Mr. Hindson
designed new ways of working and made his vision as clear as possible. Changes
were developed collaboratively by service users and those working on the front
line.
(iv)
In order to stay up to date with policy and guidance from central
government Mr. Hindson stated that he would maintain
regular contact with ministers and officials in government and that he had
strong links with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice.
(v)
Mr. Hindson’s previous jobs gave him
experience of delivering services at a time of reducing resources and he
approached times of austerity with a positive attitude as it gave the
opportunity to reassess ways of working and go back to basics. Mr. Hindson stated that he had the ability to prioritise and
make tough choices about which areas of work to focus on and invest resources
in.
(vi)
When commissioning services Mr. Hindson
had in the past been required to utilise very detailed contracts with providers
however he was not in favour of this approach and preferred to focus on the
outputs of providers.
(vii)
Mr. Hindson acknowledged that there was
an abundant set of partners in the area of criminal justice throughout
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and stated that he would identify the key
stakeholders and use their sphere of influence. He aimed to build relationships
with all Councillors in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and take their
views on board.
(viii)
Mr. Hindson acknowledged the importance
of community engagement and noted that some communities were hard to reach and
therefore required different approaches of getting messages across such as
community forums and social media.
(ix)
When prompted Mr. Hindson noted that the
Police and Crime Plan clearly set out the vision for the work of the OPCC but
stated that circumstances could change both nationally and locally and he would
be horizon scanning to identify new priorities.
(x)
Mr. Hindson stated that he was familiar
with the Nolan principles and recognised the importance of acting appropriately
and with integrity.
(xi)
Mr. Hindson clarified that his company
Encompass Innovation Ltd was dormant and would be closed down once the end of
year accounts had been submitted. Therefore there would be no conflict of
interest with the job of Chief Executive Officer at the OPCC should he be
appointed.
(xii) Mr. Hindson
stated that should he be appointed he would seek to develop a positive
relationship with the PCC but at all times be mindful of his role as Monitoring
Officer and make sure the PCC conducts himself appropriately, legally and
fairly. Mr. Hindson had experience of working with
politicians from his previous jobs such as working with government ministers
where he was able to encourage them to temper their ideas and ensure projects
were compatible with existing legislation.
The
Chairman thanked the PCC and Mr. Hindson for their
attendance and informed them that it would be necessary for the Panel to come
to a view in private on whether to endorse or otherwise the PCC’s proposed
appointment.
The
Chairman indicated that the OPCC would be notified of the Panel’s decision
within one working day.
(Mr.
Paul Hindson left the room.)
Supporting documents: