WHEN South Lakeland District Council first tried to introduce a pay and grading structure, it was attempting to bring in a system of pay that was fair and equitable.

At the time the exercise began, there were more than 120 different pay grades at the authority.

The process of bringing in the new structure took longer than anticipated, Mr Jones found, and, as a result, deadlines were not kept and delays occurred.

Mr Jones concluded that: "In the end, the process was condensed and the perception was that it was rushed through in order to meet the promises made to the trade unions and staff. "This is evident by the fact that on the very day the final report was being prepared for distribution to members, when errors for which there were no logical explanation were found, no further checks or investigation took place."

A detailed and achievable project plan could, and probably would, have prevented a number of the more serious issues that arose, he concluded.

Mr Jones said that major projects should have a project plan that was "fit for purpose"; projects should not be rushed simply to meet deadlines; clear lines of responsibility should be established; and that written reports should be produced.

In his report, Mr Jones said that members acted correctly throughout the process, although at the key meeting of the general purposes committee on September 29, 2003 (when the pay and grading structure was agreed), it was clear that councillors did not fully understand they could refer the decision to full council.

Mr Jones singled out for criticism the member who leaked documents, which he said was a question "for the individual's conscience and integrity".

Mr Jones concluded that the general purposes committee should not be asked to decide on such important issues, and that members should not be reluctant to challenge and question the advice of officers.

Although he did not go into detail about the role played by Philip Cunliffe and Jack Jones in the process, Mr Jones concluded that the management team relied heavily on the verbal information provided by the human resources manager (Andrew Taylor), and did not request written reports.

He concluded that a detailed project plan, which clearly allocated duties and responsibilities, should always be in place before any major process was started.

Mr Jones described the investigation process itself. He said there had been some criticism of the council for perceived delays in dealing with the issue, and there had also been the suggestion that there had been reluctance or inability among councillors to resolve the problem.

Neither of these statements was true, said Mr Jones, who concluded the council had to follow the procedure, no matter how long and cumbersome it might seem.

SLDC should canvass the Employers' Organisation (which supports local authorities, in their role as employers, to deliver quality services) to seek a review of the procedure, which was "unwieldy and unnecessarily complex", concluded Mr Jones.