Agenda and minutes
PDF 182 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Bryan Searle or Lucy Collier
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Mark Brett-Warburton. There were no substitutions.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING:
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes from 28 January to follow. Minutes: The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a true record of the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (25 February). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (22 February). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SCRUTINY BOARD
Responses have been received on the following Items:
-Orbis Public Law -Revenue & Capital Budget 2016-2017 to 2020-2021 Additional documents: Minutes: The responses from the Cabinet in relation to the Revenue & Capital Budget and Orbis Public Law were agreed by the Board. |
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S UPDATE
Minutes: This item was included on the agenda in error and was withdrawn.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised in the discussion:
4. It was noted that a specific report on Surrey Choices would be included as part of the Shareholder Board Annual item in June 2016. The Chairman of the Audit & Governance Committee would be invited to attend for this item. |
|
|
STAFF SURVEY REPORT
To present the Employee Survey Results since September 2011 and provide expertise in the areas of employee engagement and advocacy.
"Please note that ownership and Intellectual Property Rights in all data, the evaluation analysis, methodology and materials rests and remains with Best Companies Limited. Best Companies grants a limited right for the organisation being surveyed to use the information we provided internally within their organisation solely for the purpose of improvement.
In addition, to the above, the methodology, survey and question items contained are all covered by copyright and must not be reproduced without the express written permission of Best Companies.
Best Companies are comfortable with the data held within this report being produced for internal staff development and improvement but has requested this is not reproduced for any other purpose." Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Witnesses:
Amy Bailey, Strategic Change and Efficiency Manager Ken Akers, HR Relationship Manager
Key points raised in the discussion:
1.
The Board expressed disappointment regarding the low response rate
to the survey and asked how a better response rate could be
achieved in the next survey, which was due to happen October 2016.
The Strategic Change and Efficiency Manager agreed that the
response rate was disappointing and informed the Board of the clear
guidelines set by Best Companies (the organisation commissioned to
run the survey), which meant that the Council was not able to
promote the survey in advance because it was in competition with
other organisations. However, now that
the first survey had been held there was more scope to raise
awareness of future surveys. Whilst the last full Surrey survey was
completed in September 2011, a series of small locally-managed
surveys had been completed since that time. These would now be better managed so that the Best
Companies survey would not overlap with other mechanisms for
canvassing staff opinion, and this was also expected to improve the
response rate. The Board were informed
that the Benchmarking data were available and would be circulated
to members in due course. 2. Concerns were expressed regarding the area of Fair Deal as it received the lowest overall score in the survey. The HR Relationship Manager explained that the Council was currently consulting on a new Pay and Reward scheme, which aimed to develop a better pay structure for staff and address some of the issues raised. It was stated that the aim was to become an employer of choice and fulfill commitments to residents at the highest possible standard. The consultation period would end on 22 April 2016. Unions would then be consulted and recommendations made to the People, Performance and Development Committee (PPDC). So far over 800 managers had attended briefings, and 2,200 members of staff had signed up to attend one of the consultation events. The aim was to implement changes by 1 July 2016. The Council Overview Board would review the outcomes of the consultation prior to the PPDC meeting.
3.
It was reported that when comparing
overall scores to other organisations, the County Council generally
scored positively for areas such as My Manager, Personal Growth, My
Team and Wellbeing. It was said that the factors which were below
the benchmark were Leadership and Fair Deal. The Board requested
further a further break-down of the results by service. 4. Whilst acknowledging the positive results in many areas of the survey, the Board highlighted the fact that one of the lowest scores was in response to the question about senior managers doing a lot of telling and not much listening. The Board asked whether this was an issue for particular services and whether more could be done to embed the Council’s coaching culture. It was noted that the Council would continue to invest in its coaching approach and the High Performance Development Programme (HPDP) for ... view the full minutes text for item 18/16 |
|
|
CYBER SECURITY & IMT REPORT
The Board will review the Security Report and the different background items which will cover an update on IT, activity to maintain the cyber security of the organisation, the security programme and the overall Information Management and Technology (IMT) work programme.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest: None
Witnesses:
Paul Brocklehurst, Head of IMT Chris Millard, Group Manager, Business Solutions Morgan Rees, Technical Delivery Manager Lorraine Juniper, Programmes Manager
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The report was introduced by the Group Manager of Business Solutions who explained that the IMT Service had responsibility for security compliance and the technical security controls needed to protect the organisation against cyber threats. It was highlighted to Members that due to the challenging world with ongoing new technology including social media there are ongoing risks with sensitive information.
2. It was stated they were currently undergoing a security review to update the security policy and approach, including security training, new tools and techniques and more internet access and review of supporting security technology. The focus would be on tailoring security to people’s jobs, including opening up access to websites and applications where it was appropriate to the role.
3. The Technical Delivery Manager informed the Board that they currently have undertaken a number of operation tests for Cyber attacks including internet based attacks to ensure they are identified and blocked each year. The Board was informed that the IMT service had trailed two new security products known as ‘Smoothwall’ and ‘Splunk’ which had allowed IMT staff to monitor usage easily and also give access to Internet sites. The purpose of these was to protect the organisation in a more hostile technical world.
4. It was noted that the virus attack against the County Council on 2 February 2016 did not disrupt any Council activity or result in direct costs to the Council, and the IMT team was reviewing security arrangements in the light of the attack.
5. The Council worked under the same compliance regime as East Sussex, used the same security tools and technology and worked together to share intelligence. Therefore integration as a result of the Orbis partnership would not impact negatively on either party. The audit report provided reassurance about the security arrangements in place.
6. It was reported that technology boards for each directorate were responsible for deciding items for inclusion in the project work plan. Projects were funded from a combination of service and IMT central funding, with IMT funding used to support the top priority projects. The technology boards were chaired by senior managers. The Board requested further details about the process for agreeing funding decisions for IMT projects. Once this information had been reviewed the Board would decide if there were further areas it wished to scrutinise.
7. The Board noted that savings were achieved by re-negotiating contracts rather than by putting projects on hold, and the team had been working very effectively over the last eighteen months to ensure cost savings were made.
8. The Board noted that Paul Brocklehurst, the Head of IMT, would be leaving the Council at the end of the month. The Chairman thanked him on behalf of the Board for his contribution at Surrey, and it ... view the full minutes text for item 19/16 |
|
To provide Members with an outline of the current arrangements for managing the Council’s Trust Funds in the context of a recent Internal Audit report. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None
Witnesses:
Kevin Kilburn, Deputy Chief Finance Officer Saba Hussain, Strategic Partnerships & Policy Manager
Key points raised in the discussion:
1. The Chairman of the Board introduced and thanked the Deputy Finance Officer for the report. The Deputy Chief Finance Officer explained that many local authorities acted as trustees for funds that had been set up for charitable or non-charitable purposes, known as Trust Funds. It was stated that the County Council may contribute to the Funds.
2. Responsibility for the ongoing management of Trusts was delegated to officers of the County Council, and clarification was sought about whether overall responsibility rested with Councillors, as stated in paragraph 19 of the report, or with the Council as a body.
3. The Deputy Chief Finance Officer informed the Board that one of Surrey County Council’s largest Trust Fund was the Tulk Bequest, and the purpose of the fund was to provide outdoor sports facilities for Surrey secondary schools. Members queried whether residents knew the full details regarding this and other trust funds and whether they were eligible to apply. It was noted that in some cases the criteria would need to be changed so that the funds could be accessed, and the Council would need to ensure that the funds were used for charitable purposes.
4. Officers updated the Board that the County Council had previously transferred some trusts to the charity Community Foundation for Surrey who ensured the trusts were used for the benefit of Surrey residents in the way the trust was originally intended. The transfer of dormant trust funds to Community Foundations is supported by the Charity Commission.
Michael Gosling left the meeting at 12.27pm. Keith Witham left the meeting at 12.30pm.
Resolved: That a task group be established to review the Council’s trust funds and report back to the Board: members to be Steve Cosser, Nick Harrison and Mark Brett-Warburton (or another member of the Education & Skills Board)
Further Information to be Provided: Clarification to be provided about whether overall responsibility for trust funds rests with Councillors or with the Council as a body.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10 am on 13 April 2016. Minutes: The next meeting of the Board will be held at Wednesday 13 April 2016 at County Hall. |