Chief's pay report before council

Andrea Hill's salary caused controversy when it was announced

A report which found the hiring of a local authority chief executive for £220,000 a year was lawful has gone before councillors.

Andrea Hill's appointment to Suffolk County Council in March caused controversy when it emerged the salary for the post had risen by 25%.

The Audit Commission found while there were "deficiencies" in the appointment, it was not "fundamentally flawed".

The council accepted the report and recommendations for improvements.

The audit report recommended the council review its recruitment process for senior officers' posts and ensure that value for money is given "sufficient consideration within the recruitment business case".

'Robust and lawful'

Councillor John Klaschka, chairman of the council's audit committee, said: "The key finding of the district auditor confirmed that the council had 'a robust and thorough selection process in place to secure the best candidate for the chief executive post'.

"There were some areas where there was scope for improvement, but these were minor procedural matters and overall the appointment process was robust and lawful."

But Kevan Lim, opposition Labour group deputy leader, said: "The Labour group is staggered at the complacency of the Conservative administration.

"Despite the anger of the public and a critical independent report, the Conservatives are still unable to hold up their hands and admit mistakes.

"We would hope that they learn the lessons from this disgraceful event and never again abuse taxpayers' money in the way they did on the chief executive's salary."

'Concern over value'

The audit report said Ms Hill's pay rise was "not unreasonable" despite concerns over the way the council decided on it.

Auditor Robert Davies, who wrote the report, criticised the fact that sufficient information was not shared with council members as to why the raise was necessary.

The report found that "the council cannot demonstrate that value for money was given sufficient consideration".

However, the report went on to say that the deficiencies in the information provided to councillors during the process "were not so significant as to materially affect the decision reached".