Meeting documents
Shared Services Joint Committee
Monday, 29th March, 2010
| Date: | Monday 18 January 2010 | Time: | 3.30pm | Place: | Cross Room, Civic Centre, West Paddock, Leyland PR25 1DH |
| Present: | Councillor Mr C J Clark (South Ribble BC) (in the Chair) Councillors Mr K Joyce (Chorley BC), Mr S M Robinson (South Ribble BC) and Mr G Russell (Chorley BC) |
| In attendance: | Garry Barclay (Head of Shared Assurance Services), Susan Guinness (Head of Shared Financial Services), Gary Hall (Chorley BC), Andy Houlker (South Ribble BC) and Mike Nuttall (South Ribble BC) |
| Public attendance: | 1 |
| Other Officers: | None |
| Item | Description/Resolution | Status | Action | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OPEN ITEMS | ||||
| 20 |
Apologies for Absence There were no apologies for absence. |
Noted | ||
| 21 |
Minutes of the Last Meeting Minutes (106K/bytes) attached The chairman requested and received an update/clarity on a few matters. Relating to communication, a Communications Plan for the partnership had been produced, all issues had been taken on board and a lot had now been addressed. In respect of member awareness of the partnership it was understood that this had been identified as a topic in the Member Awareness Programme. On the subject of partnership arrangements this referred to taking the partnership forward, growth options etc. At this stage it was very difficult to develop a strategic approach because a lot of local authorities were unclear where they were going with shared services. At present this would be looked at on a meeting by meeting basis as it became clearer over the next 12 months. It was explained that the Assurance Strategy was currently being reviewed and a fresh draft document would be present for consideration at the next cycle of meetings. RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2010 be signed as a correct record. |
Agreed | ||
| 22 |
Declarations of Interest There were no declarations of interest. |
Noted | ||
| 23 |
Annual Audit & Inspection Letter 2008-2009 Annual Audit Letter 2008-09 attached The chairman welcomed Fiona Blatcher (Audit Commission) who presented this item to the committee. She explained that whilst it was a requirement to produce the Annual Audit & Inspection Letter, this was a summary of the audits and was not very different to the report presented in September but was less formal and easier to follow. An enquiry was made relating to the material errors identified and corrected on page 5. It was explained that this primarily related to ?49,000 as a result of allocating the costs from the councils to the work of the partnership and also a share of support costs and caused an increase in the distribution of costs of the partnership. RESOLVED: That the committee notes the Annual Audit & Inspection Letter 2008-2009 and the Audit Commission be thanked for producing a brief and more understandable document. |
Agreed | ||
| 24 |
Audit Fee and Opinion Plan 2008-09 & 2009-10 Audit Fee and Opinion Plan 2008-09 & 2009-10 attached The committee then received the second item from the external auditor, the Audit Fee and Opinion Plan 2008-09 & 2009-10. As the partnership was expected to have expenditure exceeding ?1M a full code of practise audit was required. This included an opinion on the financial statements of the partnership together with conclusion on arrangements to achieve economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The Audit Commission was required to specify detailed risks needed to be considered as part of its opinion work and had to - identify the risk of material misstatement in the council's accounts - plan audit procedures to address these risks - ensure that the audit complied with all relevant auditing standards Following completion of the 2008/09 audit the external auditors would re-assess the opinion risks for 2009/10 and report these to the joint committee nearer the start of the 2009/10 audit. The committee?s attention was drawn to page 4 which showed the planned fee for the completion of the audit in 2008/09 (?11,900) and 2009/10 (?7,645). It was explained that the fee for the first year had included one-off start up costs and there had been an increased understanding of the workings of the constituent councils. The committee was pleased to note the reduced fee. The external auditor was asked and informed the committee that she had been appointed as external auditor to both councils and the joint committee. Whilst this could not be guaranteed she felt it would have been unusual if someone else had been appointed. The appointment was understood to be until 2010/11. In response to a question as if the fee was proportionate and would have been spent by the councils in any event, the external auditor stated it could be argued it was not value for money to conduct a full audit on shared services, and the fee was additional to the audits of the two councils. The shared services had a separate set of accounts. The Audit Commission was trying to minimise its fee and to take as much assurance as possible from the two principle audits. The committee was aware that the external auditors were only complying with the current regulations and that the saving s of the partnership far out weighed its audit fees. The external auditor commented that the Audit Commission had consulted the Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) with a view to increasing the threshold before a full audit was required. RESOLVED: That the committee notes the Audit Fee and Opinion Plan 2008-09 & 2009-10. |
Agreed | ||
| 25 |
Workforce Development Plan Workforce Development Plan attached The presented Workforce Development Plan (WPD) had been produced to address several skills shortages identified as being critical to the future success of the partnership. Whilst there was a need to improve some technical skills the plan mainly focused on developing softer skills and competencies, particularly at managerial/supervisory level. The item outlined the content of the WDP, approaches to be adopted and that its implementation was a key priority for 2010. The core skills identified to be developed to enable the partnership to go forward for success and excellence were: - focusing on customers (identify and meet their needs - leading and motivating their teams to deliver the services and standards expected - working as a team within the partnership - communicating effectively with customers and staff The committee noted this had followed a skills audit by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) and enquired if there had been a charge and could this not have carried out in house. There had been a fee but this had been paid for by the NW Centre for Excellence, and it was appropriate to get an independent view. The plan gave the partnership a robust baseline on which to build and make the partnership a success. The work needed had been identified and had recently started on delivering the plan. In response to who were ?customers? this was anyone at the receiving end of the partnership?s services. A customer survey was to be carried out and provide a reliable assessment. Any training for staff in the partnership would be delivered jointly through both councils. The committee was keen that there were appropriate review and evaluation measures in place to assess progress being made through the WDP. It was envisaged that the plan would be flexible and adaptive to circumstances. There was a further partnership staff away day planned in February 2010 centred on this and it was proposed that issues/topic arising would be incorporated into the WDP. However, if there was anything significant arising a revised plan would be brought before this committee. RESOLVED: That the Workforce Development Plan be approved and adopted subject to the inclusion of an appropriate review and evaluation process. |
Agreed | ||
| 26 |
Exit Management Plan Exit Management Plan attached The committee received a report summarising and explaining the content of the draft Exit Management Plan (EMP) that accompanied the report. The production of the EMP had not been seen as an immediate priority. However, it was a requirement under Schedule 5 of the partnership agreement to develop an EMP within one year of the partnership starting. The plan?s guiding principle was fair and equal treatment so that both councils were restored to a position of parity should for whatever reason the partnership be dissolved. An approved plan would be incorporated into the actual partnership agreement and be reviewed every two years. The partnership agreement already contained some timescales should it be decided to dissolve the partnership, such as the partnership must operate for a minimum of 4 years, and after that a period of 12 months notice would have to be given. There were a range of scenarios that could lead to the dissolution of the partnership, such as the councils becoming part of a larger authority or delivering the services on a contractual rather than partnership basis. In the event of dissolving the partnership this committee would act to oversee the project management as opposed to its previous role creating the partnership. The EMP was a guiding principle as it was not practical to produce a procedure for every scenario. The EMP suggested that during dissolution it was appropriate to appoint a project manager to resolve disputes and facilitate safe delivery. The committee saw the advantage of an independent adviser although the role needed to be clear. In identifying key issues it was agreed prudent should a decision be made to dissolve the partnership, a dedicated risk register be produced. RESOLVED: 1. That the Exit Management Plan be endorsed and incorporated into the partnership agreement; and 2. That should a decision be made to dissolve the partnership, a dedicated risk register be produced. |
Agreed | ||
| 27 |
Performance Management Report Performance Mgt Report attached The committee received the third performance management report for the current financial year, as at the end of November 2009 and illustrated the progress made so far against the key service developments, performance indicators in the 2009/10 Business Improvement Plan (BIP). The partnership was performing well with 21 of the 25 key projects for 2009/10 completed or on track with plans in place to put the remaining four back on course. In respect of the BIP?s performance indicators 7 of the 41 indicators were red with an explanation in the presented report. It was reported that the partnership was operating well within its budget and was expected to under spend by ?37,000. This was largely due to a vacant post in procurement and a lower staff pay award off set by fees for external audit, LCC computer link and consultancy for final accounts project management. In respect of the vacant post the committee was informed that whilst there had been an unsuccessful recruitment exercise last year this was being re-advertised and it was hoped to have someone in post as soon as possible. RESOLVED: That the committee notes the overall good progress on performance of the partnership for the third quarter of 2009/10. |
Agreed | ||
| 28 |
Business Improvement Plan & Budget for 2010-11 BIP & Budget 2010-11 attached The committee received a report with attached Business Improvement Plan (BIP) and budget for the partnership covering the second complete year of operation. It would receive regular updates during the year highlighting actions taken to deliver the service improvements and performance targets specified in the BIP, including a budget update, concluding with a detailed year-end Annual Report (in June). The committee noted the recommendation to give delegated authority to the chairman and vice-chairman so it did not need to consider amendments. In compiling the report managers had looked at such matters as; where the partnership was, what it had achieved, what were the risks/opportunities and, actions needed (projects/targets). This had also included a backwards look as outlined on page 5 of the report. This had been a transitional year and the partnership had progressed against very challenging projects and targets. The Use of Resources scores for both councils had been very strong and the three statements of accounts had each received unqualified opinions. The Internal Audit Service was entirely merged with merged processes and had been reviewed by ISOQAR and retained its accreditation. The councils had benefited with the introduction of a Joint Procurement Strategy and the appointment of a single Insurance Broker. The report identified new risks and opportunities for 2010/11 on page 7, including implementation of the Workforce Development Plan (WDP). Whilst the partnership was conscious of some future opportunities, others may occur. The partnership had tendered for work with the Lancashire Fire and Rescue Service which even if unsuccessful helped it prepare for other opportunities. It could be seen from the report that the partnership was looking at a balanced budget for 201/11 and efficiency savings were indicated on page 10 of the report. The Chairman commended the report for its format and readability and the good progress being made. RESOLVED: 1. That the committee recommends the Executives of both Chorley and South Ribble councils adopt the draft Business Improvement Plan and Budget for implementation by the partnership in 2010/11; and 2. That the Corporate Director (Resources) and the Director of Transformation in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of this committee be given delegated authority to incorporate any residual information or amendments to the Business Improvement Plan and Budget. |
Agreed | ||
| 29 |
Forward Plan Forward Plan attached The committee received a copy of the Forward Plan. During the discussion the committee also noted the proposed dated for meetings of the committee in 2010/11. RESOLVED: 1. That the committee's Forward Plan be noted; and 2. That subject to confirmation by the meeting of South Ribble?s council on 20 January 2010, the following dates be agreed for 2010/11:- 3.30pm Monday 21 June 2010 3.30pm Monday 27 September 2010 3.30pm Monday 18 October 2010 3.30pm Monday 24 January 2011 3.30pm Monday 28 March 2011 |
Agreed | ||
(The meeting finished at 4.25pm)
 |