West Midlands Police Federation statement
Last year following the judgement received regarding the unacceptable discrimination suffered by many members through the actions of the Police Federation of England and Wales (PFEW), the National Board (NB), which is made up of 24 regional representatives elected by local branch chairs and secretaries, decided to appoint a chief executive officer (CEO).
After the full detail of the judgement exposed just what had taken place, the CEO was essentially appointed to achieve a satisfactory settlement with the claimants, deal with the problematic culture that had been evidenced and “professionalise” the organisation.
This major decision, however, was taken by the NB without consultation with local branch members. So, while the decision was understandable, we believe it should have been more widely consulted on first.
This has left some challenges in understanding, and confusion as to how this all now works in conjunction with an elected national chair and general secretary.
The most important, and indeed vital, thing for PFEW is to reach an appropriate settlement with the claimants that also ensures the organisation can continue to represent members effectively. That is a very difficult task which is ongoing.
A CEO and other national posts like financial director were first suggested as part of the independent Normington review of the Police Federation, in order to further professionalise the organisation. These type of positions are, arguably, not best suited for elected police officers and distract from our core role of representing colleagues.
The issue, as we see it, is the CEO and NB have proceeded to these appointments at breakneck speed, which they argue is necessary to secure the future of PFEW. However, the cost is that branches like ours have not felt sufficiently able to have their say and offer sufficient scrutiny.
The CEO came to the West Midlands Police Federation Branch Board meeting recently and was questioned at length for several hours by myself and other senior local reps. We respect anyone who will face criticisms and answer them head on in an open and transparent way. We thank the CEO for this opportunity which was helpful.
We in the West Mids do not agree with all the decisions made by PFEW but we respect the democratic process as it is. We were vehemently opposed to increasing terms of office and voted against this move, for example. Sadly for us, 84 per cent of the National Council voted in favour. We also did not sign a recent ‘memorandum of understanding’ because we think it limits our voice through consultation. However, the majority of branches signed it so it came to pass.
So, the question of confidence is a difficult one. We do not think the current focus on the CEO is fair. He was asked to do a job he is doing. But the elected NB members need to do their job too. It is a balance we don’t think is currently quite right, but we are in a state of transition and uncertainty.
Ultimately, we have privately and robustly made our expectations clear to our NB members. We must hold them to account and provide them with clarity, and are doing so. But that will remain private as I think most people would understand is appropriate.
