Agenda and minutes
PDF 181 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Ross Pike
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from Bill Chapman, Bob Gardner, Denise Saliagopoulos and Hazel Watson.
|
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 6 JULY 2016
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: · A member of the board made comments with regards to item 53/16 of the previous minutes. On paragraph 5 of the minutes, in the last sentence to include ‘allows’ after means, so to read, ‘ensuring that the authority cannot borrow more than its means allows’. · On paragraph 7 of the minutes, in the last sentence to remove acquire and replace with ‘receive’, so to read ‘the authority was projected to receive dividends’. · Subject to the amendments, the minutes were agreed 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 no declarations of interest made. |
|
|
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 (Thursday 15 September 2016). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (Wednesday 14 September 2016). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: There were no questions or petitions submitted to the board. |
|
|
FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AND BUDGET PLANNING 2017- 2022
Purpose of the report: Policy Development and Review
The report provides an overview of consultation practice, how officers are supported to undertake consultations and how this can be strengthened. Additional documents: Minutes: A revised Annex 1 was tabled at the beginning of the meeting.
Witnesses:
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman explained that this item would be taken first on the agenda as the Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience was due at another meeting at 10.30am.
2. The Chairman explained that a financial sustainability and budget planning paper had been agreed at Cabinet on 20 September 2016 with all recommendations being agreed except recommendation 8 which had some minor changes made.
3. The Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience briefly introduced the report to the Board. She explained that the Council was in a financially unprecedented situation and was facing great budgetary challenges especially with the adults and children’s social care budgets. There was great concern amongst the Cabinet and this had been raised with local MPs and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was further explained that the four year settlement decision would be delegated to the Leader after discussions with the Cabinet had taken place. The Cabinet were minded to refuse the four year offer even though originally it had been welcomed. Accepting the four year offer would mean Surrey tax payers would be funding other parts of the country in year 4 of the deal. The cabinet member also explained that the council’s budget planning is considering two scenarios – A&B, where A included the known pressures and savings while B included a £20m ‘shock’.
4. A Member of the Board queried if it was wise for the Leader to take a decision regarding the four year settlement on his own without any consultation. Furthermore it was queried whether this decision would be taken in public. The Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience explained that discussions regarding the settlement had taken place with the Cabinet and the Leader is minded to refuse the offer, which would be discussed at Full County Council on 11 October, prior to a decision being made.The Cabinet are willing to speak with Members about this further. The Board were reassured that in terms of assessing risk the Leader would be consulting further with the Chief Executive. The Cabinet Member for Business Services and Resident Experience would confirm whether this decision would take place in public in due course.
5. A Member of the Board raised concerns that a great element of what the Cabinet were pursuing relied on the Government having a change of heart even though it was clear that there were trust issues between both parties. Furthermore, there seemed to be no clear plans in place if the Council refused the settlement offer. It was further explained that the county was prepared for the worst case scenarios and the Cabinet had held a number of workshops to look into these scenarios.
6. Queries were raised around a potential additional 6% precept ... view the full minutes text for item 62/16 |
|
|
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL'S APPROACH TO CONSULTATION
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Budgets
This report presents an update on the council’s financial prospects and the key strategies to respond to the challenge presented in the next five year Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP 2017?22) to ensure it is both balanced and sustainable. Minutes: Witnesses:
Tim Vamplew, Research & Consultation Manager Rich Stockley, Senior Manager – Research & Intelligence Pat Hindley, Campaign Communications Manager Paul Millin, Travel & Transport Group Manager
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Members raised a query around costs involved with consultations and if there was any financial benefit of running consultations centrally. The Senior Manager stated that there was no annual cost figure available as each department runs their own consultations. Obtaining this figure would be difficult especially as the majority of cost involved was officer time.
2. A Member queried what the benefit of setting up a ‘champion’s network’ would be. It was explained by officers that setting up this network would combat officer isolation and allow officers to network for more support on consultation work. The network is about connecting up people rather than creating new roles.
3. Officers stated that many lessons are learnt from setting up consultations. Officers carry out an evaluation as to how things have been done well and what could have been done better although it was recognised that not all services use the support offered by the Research & Intelligence team. Guidance on carrying out consultations with best practice was available on Snet and training courses were also offered to officers. Officers were also signposted to other courses outside of the county council including courses run by Surrey University.
4. A Member queried whether work had been done to analyse common trends both positive and negative. The Senior Manager stated that 90% of the time consultations go badly because people do not use the expertise of the Research & Intelligence team and are inexperienced at running consultations.
5. Listing some examples, a Member raised concerns that some consultations had been ineffective and hard to access for residents. The Board asked how officers ensured that all residents were reached as part of the consultation process. The Senior Manager explained that sampling was an issue and that the same residents or groups did often appear. The Campaign Communications Manager stated that in consultations where officers wanted a wider response, the Communications team would work with officers through various means to achieve this. Various channels of communications were used and targeting activity was also undertaken but it was recognised that evaluation after the consultation was essential to see how things had progressed.
6. The Board expressed the view that sometimes consultations felt like they were based on pre-determined outcomes. The Senior Manager recognised that perception but explained that this would be counterproductive for the council. It was explained that in some cases it was might not be appropriate to consult whereas in others there is a statutory or legal obligation to do so, however, this scenario can only be addressed if the central team is approached in the first instance.
7. It was recognised that the Local Transport Review had been a huge success and was far reaching. The Travel & Transport Group Manager stated that his team had worked closely with the communications team ... view the full minutes text for item 63/16 |
|
|
INTERNAL AUDIT: REVIEW OF PROPERTY ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INCOME MODULE
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
To review the summary of audit findings and Management Action Plan produced as a result of an internal audit review. Additional documents: Minutes: Colin Kemp and Mark Brett-Warburton left the room at 11.55am
Colin Kemp returned at 12.02pm
Mark Brett-Warburton returned at 12.05pm
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Members raised concerns that money had been lost from not having a proper method of recording money owed to the Council. Furthermore questions were raised as to why the audit opinion recorded ‘no position’. The Deputy Chief Property Officer explained that the Property Asset Management System (PAMS) had been live since September 2015 and the interface between the system and SAP was the only element of the system that was not working. The officer emphasised that there had been no loss of rental income due to the interface not working. There had been opportunity costs to officers through duplication of inputs to both PAMS and SAP. PAMS would continue to be developed and work to align the system with East Sussex County Council would be considered.
2. A Member queried a key finding in the audit report which stated that the absence of a senior officer on maternity leave with no replacement meant that the project was delayed. The Performance Manager stated that the decision not to go live with the system was due to stakeholder involvement rather than officer cover. He went on to further explain that stakeholders involved in the project decided to delay implementation as processes in place necessitated more work.
3. It was explained that the final module of PAMS was implemented and went live in September 2015. The system gives officers access to all the information held by the property service. The service decided to go live with the system to enable officers to gain experience with the system.
4. The Lead Auditor explained that PAMS had been implemented module by module over the past few years, with the Income Module being the final one to 'go live' in September 2015. Although this module had been partially 'live' since September 2015, it was not possible for the auditor to review the whole system, including the interface and hence the auditor did not feel that it was reasonable to give an audit opinion on a system that was not fully operational. The auditor however, agreed to re-visit this area once the system has been fully operational for a reasonable period of time.
5. Members raised concerns over the lack of senior management ownership of the project. The Performance Manager stated that an IMT project manager was taking the lead on the project but was no longer involved in the project. For this reason the service has been liaising with stakeholders and has organised two meetings in October to agree a plan for the introduction of the system.
6. A Member queried why the service was developing a bespoke interface and not purchasing an already developed system. It was explained that due to the specialist nature of the ... view the full minutes text for item 64/16 |
|
|
INTERNAL AUDIT: SURREY YOUTH CENTRES - GOVERNANCE AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS
Purpose of the report: Scrutiny of Services
To review the summary of audit findings and Management Action Plan produced as a result of an internal audit review.
Additional documents: Minutes:
Ben Byrne, Head of Early Help
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman of the Board expressed his concerns with the findings of the audit report and queried whether the Head of Early Help thought enough was being done to train people and ensure they are being held to account. The Head of Early Help recognised there were failings but work was being done with audit to address these failings. Training has been identified with colleagues and new processes had been introduced. The management team recognised more should have been done to support colleagues. The Head of Early Help went onto explain that there had been a degree of significant change within the service which had impacted the findings.
2. The Audit Performance Manager welcomed the comments made by the Head of Early Help and stated that the audit findings had been accepted early on by the service. He explained that process and financial management issues are not new to the council and there had not been any guidance for front line staff on cash management. In the circumstances staff were doing their best but it was vital for training to be undertaken.
3. Some Members stated that they did not take any comfort from the actions being proposed in the audit plan and recognised that this could have a great impact on public confidence in the council. The Head of Early Help stated that he was committed to making a change and would work with audit to ensure improvements are made.
Colin Kemp left the meeting at 12.40pm
4. The Community Youth Work Service Manager explained that the service was on target with the audit management action plan. Training had been organised with staff on cash handling and full structures and support were in place for staff. The service had recently undergone a mini training session on recording VAT correctly.
5. Members of the Board queried when a follow up review on the audit could be undertaken. It was agreed with the Audit Performance Manager that a follow up could be done in 3 months and a fuller review in 6 months. Once completed this could come back to the board for review.
Resolved:
|
|
|
SCRUTINY BOARD TASK GROUP SCOPING DOCUMENTS
Purpose of the report:For the Council Overview Board to review and approve the scoping documents as appropriate.
Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The board approved the scoping documents for both task groups. The Chairman queried whether the early help task group set up by the social care services board would be in a position to complete its work programme by December 2016. |
|
|
RESPONSES FROM THE CABINET TO ISSUES REFERRED BY THE SCRUTINY BOARD
The Cabinet responded to the recommendations made by the Board regarding the Municipal Bond Agency proposal. Additional documents: Minutes: Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman reported that the Municipal Bond Agency recommendations had been accepted by Cabinet with minor amendments which were acceptable. 2. The Chairman stated that he had recently been given copies of the minutes and reports from the Investment Advisory Board and would report back to the board on their content in due course.
|
|
|
RECOMMENDATIONS TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Board 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 of discussion:
Recommendations Tracker
1. With regards to recommendation A12/2016, the Chairman explained that the scoping document for the ‘scrutiny in a new environment’ task group would be shared with members by the end of the week. The Chairman would also be inviting members of the board to sit on this task group.
2. The tracker was noted.
Forward Work Programme
1. The Chairman explained that the review of Cabinet member priorities had been scheduled as an item for the November board meeting. The Chairman went onto say that he would be meeting with his counterpart from East Sussex to discuss the scrutiny of Orbis. Members raised concerns that it had originally been agreed for both authorities to do joint scrutiny work of Orbis but this had not yet been scheduled. The Chairman stated that he would be discussing this when he meets with his counterpart.
2. Members were asked to report to the Chairman on any items they wished to have included in the forward work programme for December. 3. It was explained that the agency staff policy and contract monitoring item had been deferred to the December board meeting.
|
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Board will be held at 10:00 on Thursday 3 November 2016 Minutes:
|