Minutes for Scrutiny Committee meeting, Dec 15 2008, 6.00PM

<div class="mgLinks"> <ul class="mgActionList"> <li><a href="http://committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/mgMeetingAttendance.asp?ID=2139&J=1" class="external" title="Link to attendance details for the meeting of Scrutiny CommitteeMonday, 15th December, 2008 6.00 pm">Attendance Details</a></li> <li><a href="http://committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=2139&T=0&J=1" class="external" title="Link to agenda frontsheet pdf file">Agenda Frontsheet</a> PDF 327 K </li> <li><a href="http://committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=2139&T=10&J=1" class="external" title="Link to agenda reports document pack pdf file">Agenda Reports Pack</a> PDF 328 K </li> <li><a href="http://committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=2139&T=1&J=1" class="external" title="Link to printed minutes pdf file">Printed Minutes</a> PDF 66 K </li> </ul> </div><div class="mgContent"> Venue: Guildhall Contact: Committee Administration Tel nos. 01905 722005/722006/722085  Items No. Item <a name="AI4634"></a>47. BUDGET 2009/10 AND ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE <ul class="mgActionList"> <li><a href="http://committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.asp?IId=6508&J=1" class="external" title="Link to issue details for item 47.">Find out more about item 47.</a></li> </ul> <div class="mgWordPara"><div class="Section1"> For papers please see Cabinet agenda for 17th December 2008, Agenda items 4 and 5.</div> </div>Minutes:<div class="mgWordPara"><div class="Section1"> The purpose of the meeting was to consider proposals to address the budget gap, and future direction and organisation of the City Council, as informed by the work undertaken by Mouchel Management Consulting. These were to be considered by the Cabinet at their meeting on 17th December 2008.   The Leader and Chief Executive provided an introduction to discussions by recapping on some of the main reasons for the current financial position which included;   *        trying to maintain a breadth of services with a £16 million cost within a £13 million budget. *        Successive government grant settlements not reflecting the county town burden. *        Concessionary travel. *        Other effects on income including car parking, land charges and the audit issue regarding capitalisation.   The Medium Term Financial Plan had been developed to enable the Council to live within it's means but we had struggled to maintain the breadth of services amidst rising costs over a long period of time and there was now no slack left in revenue budgets and no further opportunity to use unallocated balances to prop up day to day spending demands.   The use of consultants had verified the financial problems and hopefully shifted the debate from questioning 'do we have a problem' to 'how can we solve it'. Mouchel had also highlighted the strategic issues which needed to be considered in order to establish the future direction of the Council.   The Chief Executive stated that joint working would provide a degree of resilience the Council currently did not have and was a way of sustaining services that everyone would wish to support, e.g Museum and Youth and Community Services. It was a way of using the existing 2 tier structure to provide services differently and also efficiently.   The £3.1 million package of cuts must be the immediate priority and must be delivered. However, it would also be necessary to reappraise the direction of the Council so that the current budget reductions could be seen as contributing to a purposeful change of direction as opposed to comprising just a series of cuts. The Chief Executive stressed that a bipartisan approach would be needed to address some of the wider issues facing the Council during 2009, namely:   *        capitalisation of some of the eligible costs of the budget proposals. *        concessionary fares. *        the creation of a wholly owned company. *        parishing the City and the creation of community councils with power to levy a parish precept. *        the transition from a direct service provider to a mixed economy of provision and moving to becoming an 'enabling' Council.   The Leader set out what he felt was the current position of the Council:   *        a good evidence base from the external verification by Mouchel regarding the current financial postion, the use of which should be maximised. *        an approved Medium Term Financial Plan was in place. *        budget proposals which sought to restore the financial balance of the Council had been formulated. *        interim management arrangements were in place which were vital during a period of change and he expected CMT to 'step up to the plate' in making these work. *        3 bids on capitalisation had been submitted to the Government to meet the deadline on redundancy, pensions and transformation costs. *        Reports on sustaining the Museum and Youth and Community services had been produced. *        Budget proposals did not contain large scale closures of services but had sought to maintain and sustain the breadth of services.   He felt the majority of Members accepted the financial situation and a debate was now required about what sort of Council we could afford to be. The strategic issues raised by Mouchel each presented opportunities and needed to explored openly. There was a need to reappraise the strategic vision and priorities and what the role of the Council was in this and what was the role of partners. The Council could not achieve a first rank City on its own and needed the support of major partners who also shared this vision. It was a vision for the City and not the City Council.   Members raised a number of issues as follows:   *        The Leader was asked that if the range and breadth of services delivered was an issue, which of the discretionary services he felt were of least value to Worcester. The Leader responded that this was only one factor contributing to the situation, citing the grant settlements and the 'County town syndrome' as contributors. He also stressed the importance of the impact of concessionary travel. He did not believe the Council was delivering unnecessary services or that the vision and priorities were wrong. The budget proposals sought to sustain rather than cut out services and he felt the right balance had been achieved in the package of proposals. Partners also had to 'step up to the plate' and contribute to provision e.g. CCTV.   *        The Chief Executive explained that prior to the current proposals, the Council had attempted to pursue shared services as a way of closing the budget gap, budgeting last year to accrue at least £1million of savings, as well as prior to this having made cuts year on year. CMT had worked on their best estimate of what could be achieved given their view that the Council would want to maintain the present range of discretionary services. CMT proposals were not dissimilar from the Mouchel recommendations. In fact the Mouchel proposals did not bridge the budget gap of £3.1 million whereas the Cabinet/CMT proposals did. Members asked what other proposals had been considered and rejected and the Chief Executive explained that virtually everything that was considered had been put forward.   *        Members asked whether the Mouchel strategic recommendations had been tried and tested in authorities in a similar position to Worcester. It was felt that Telford and Wrekin provided the most recent example of parishing which they had undertaken approximately 10 years ago. The idea of a wholly owned company was innovative, although it was felt that there was no reason why it should not work if it was done for the reasons set out in the Mouchel report. It was acknowledged that these ideas would require exploration and also the resources to carry out an exploration. However, the Chief Executive stressed that achieving the £3.1 million savings in 2009/10 had to be the priority.   *        The situation regarding capitalisation was clarified as being an accepted way forward for dealing with the costs of change and the exceptional one off costs which would be incurred in delivering the budget proposals. It was noted that the budget assumed that the capitalisation bid would be successful.   *        Members expressed concern that parishing would incur a greater level of beaurocracy and would require a high degree of resources and effort to make it work. The Chief Executive stated that it was Government policy to decentralise to community level as far as possible. The Council had encouraged and supported local initiatives and therefore already had some infrastructure in place e.g the community companies. The baseline level of service would be set to be fair to all areas of Worcester in terms of what the Council could provide. The concept of community councils gave ownership to local people of what extra above this baseline they wanted to see and pay for in their communities and fitted with the Council as being an enabling authority.   *        There was some discussion concerning partnership working and whether joint working with the County Council was akin to becoming a unitary authority. The Leader stated that that debate had been held across the County and there had been no appetite for unitary reorganisation. There was no intention of looking at structural alterations at this stage. He felt that the County had demonstrated a commitment to joint working with a number of proposals already on the table and this would bring benefits to services in terms of sustainability and enhancement. Other partnerships were also vital in delivering the vision for the City and this was a debate which must be had. Whilst partners would support, for example, the development of a City Centre master plan or growing the visitor economy, these types of initiatives could not be funded and delivered by the Council alone and would have to be done in collaboration with partners.   *        Concern was expressed regarding the governance arrangements associated with joint working and the potential proliferation of joint boards. There was a need to consider how to maintain an overview.   *        A question was asked about the proposals relating to the Member and committee structure. The Leader explained that he felt it was important that Members as well as management and staff were seen to be part of the proposals to tackle the budget gap. It would be necessary to have cross party discussions to establish what was appropriate for the committee structure including the scrutiny function.   *        Issues of capacity were raised in that service delivery and corporate working would still need to continue whilst the change programme was being taken forward. The Leader acknowledged that this was an issue, but the first priority must be to deliver the budget proposals and Members needed to support the resource proposals contained in the budget papers to achieve organisational transformation from where we are to where we wished to be.   It was acknowledged that the Performance Management and Budget Scrutiny Committee would be scrutinising the budget proposals in more detail during January as part of their annual scrutiny of the budget. However the Chairman suggested that there were a number of issues in relation to the proposals as follows:   *        proposed savings were currently listed by service area rather than portfolio making it difficult to consider them in relation to corporate priorities. *        it was not clear how they had been tested against the achievement of priorities. *        it was not clear what process would be used for deciding on the proposals. *        the impact on services was not specified in any meaningful way. *        it was not clear how the public were to be consulted on the proposals.   He suggested that there would be an impact on priorities but it was not clear what that impact would be or what the priorities would be for the coming year.   The Leader commented that the broad thrust had been to sustain as broad a level of services as possible and at the same time looking for efficiencies and income generation. He accepted that there would be an impact on jobs and staff but the proposals sought to minimise this as far as was possible. There was a need to achieve a 25% reduction in the back office function. Management would be stretched during this period but would also reduce in the medium term.   He agreed that some measures would be visible and there would be a noticeable difference in some levels of services e.g. parks. In other areas there would be changes but, for example, the proposals regarding Visit Worcester could be seen as an opportunity as well as a threat, whilst youth and community services would see provision improved.   The scrutiny of the proposals would be resumed the following evening at a scheduled meeting of the Performance Management and Budget Scrutiny Committee.      </div> </div> <div class="mgHelpLine"></div></div> 2009-10-21T22:04:52+01:00

20616

Meeting

Minutes

14821 Attendance Details Agenda Frontsheet PDF 327 K Agenda Reports Pack PDF 328 K Printed Minutes PDF 66 K Venue: Guildhall Contact: Committee Administration Tel nos. 01905 722005/722006/722085  Items No. Item 47. BUDGET 2009/10 AND ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE Find out more about item 47. For papers please see Cabinet agenda for 17th December 2008, Agenda items 4 and 5. Minutes: The purpose of the meeting was to consider proposals to address the budget gap, and future directi...

<div class="mgLinks"> <ul class="mgActionList"> <li><a href="mgMeetingAttendance.asp?ID=2139&J=1" title="Link to attendance details for the meeting of Scrutiny CommitteeMonday, 15th December, 2008 6.00 pm">Attendance Details</a></li> <li><a href="mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=2139&T=0&J=1" title="Link to agenda frontsheet pdf file">Agenda Frontsheet</a> <img src="mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif" alt="pdf icon" /> PDF 327 K </li> <li><a href="mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=2139&T=10&J=1" title="Link to agenda reports document pack pdf file">Agenda Reports Pack</a> <img src="mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif" alt="pdf icon" /> PDF 328 K </li> <li><a href="mgConvert2PDF.asp?ID=2139&T=1&J=1" title="Link to printed minutes pdf file">Printed Minutes</a> <img src="mgimages/logo-pdf-1.gif" alt="pdf icon" /> PDF 66 K </li> </ul> </div><div class="mgContent"> Venue: Guildhall Contact: Committee Administration Tel nos. 01905 722005/722006/722085  <table class="mgItemTable" id="Table1" summary="Table of agenda items"> <caption class="mgSectionTitle">Items</caption> <tr> <th scope="col" abbr="No">No.</th> <th scope="col" abbr="Item">Item</th> </tr> <tr> <td class="mgItemNumberCell"><a name="AI4634"></a>47.</td> <td> BUDGET 2009/10 AND ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE <ul class="mgActionList"> <li><a href="mgIssueHistoryHome.asp?IId=6508&J=1" title="Link to issue details for item 47.">Find out more about item 47.</a></li> </ul> <div class="mgWordPara"><div class="Section1"> For papers please see Cabinet agenda for 17th December 2008, Agenda items 4 and 5.</div> </div>Minutes:<div class="mgWordPara"><div class="Section1"> The purpose of the meeting was to consider proposals to address the budget gap, and future direction and organisation of the City Council, as informed by the work undertaken by Mouchel Management Consulting. These were to be considered by the Cabinet at their meeting on 17th December 2008.   The Leader and Chief Executive provided an introduction to discussions by recapping on some of the main reasons for the current financial position which included;   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        trying to maintain a breadth of services with a £16 million cost within a £13 million budget. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        Successive government grant settlements not reflecting the county town burden. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        Concessionary travel. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        Other effects on income including car parking, land charges and the audit issue regarding capitalisation. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-align:left; mso-outline-level:1;tab-stops:33.8pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap: simple;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:baseline">   The Medium Term Financial Plan had been developed to enable the Council to live within it's means but we had struggled to maintain the breadth of services amidst rising costs over a long period of time and there was now no slack left in revenue budgets and no further opportunity to use unallocated balances to prop up day to day spending demands.   The use of consultants had verified the financial problems and hopefully shifted the debate from questioning 'do we have a problem' to 'how can we solve it'. Mouchel had also highlighted the strategic issues which needed to be considered in order to establish the future direction of the Council.   The Chief Executive stated that joint working would provide a degree of resilience the Council currently did not have and was a way of sustaining services that everyone would wish to support, e.g Museum and Youth and Community Services. It was a way of using the existing 2 tier structure to provide services differently and also efficiently.   The £3.1 million package of cuts must be the immediate priority and must be delivered. However, it would also be necessary to reappraise the direction of the Council so that the current budget reductions could be seen as contributing to a purposeful change of direction as opposed to comprising just a series of cuts. The Chief Executive stressed that a bipartisan approach would be needed to address some of the wider issues facing the Council during 2009, namely:   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        capitalisation of some of the eligible costs of the budget proposals. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        concessionary fares. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        the creation of a wholly owned company. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        parishing the City and the creation of community councils with power to levy a parish precept. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        the transition from a direct service provider to a mixed economy of provision and moving to becoming an 'enabling' Council.   The Leader set out what he felt was the current position of the Council:   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        a good evidence base from the external verification by Mouchel regarding the current financial postion, the use of which should be maximised. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        an approved Medium Term Financial Plan was in place. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        budget proposals which sought to restore the financial balance of the Council had been formulated. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        interim management arrangements were in place which were vital during a period of change and he expected CMT to 'step up to the plate' in making these work. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        3 bids on capitalisation had been submitted to the Government to meet the deadline on redundancy, pensions and transformation costs. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        Reports on sustaining the Museum and Youth and Community services had been produced. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        Budget proposals did not contain large scale closures of services but had sought to maintain and sustain the breadth of services.   He felt the majority of Members accepted the financial situation and a debate was now required about what sort of Council we could afford to be. The strategic issues raised by Mouchel each presented opportunities and needed to explored openly. There was a need to reappraise the strategic vision and priorities and what the role of the Council was in this and what was the role of partners. The Council could not achieve a first rank City on its own and needed the support of major partners who also shared this vision. It was a vision for the City and not the City Council.   Members raised a number of issues as follows:   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        The Leader was asked that if the range and breadth of services delivered was an issue, which of the discretionary services he felt were of least value to Worcester. The Leader responded that this was only one factor contributing to the situation, citing the grant settlements and the 'County town syndrome' as contributors. He also stressed the importance of the impact of concessionary travel. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; mso-outline-level:1;tab-stops:33.8pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap: simple;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:baseline"> He did not believe the Council was delivering unnecessary services or that the vision and priorities were wrong. The budget proposals sought to sustain rather than cut out services and he felt the right balance had been achieved in the package of proposals. Partners also had to 'step up to the plate' and contribute to provision e.g. CCTV.   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        The Chief Executive explained that prior to the current proposals, the Council had attempted to pursue shared services as a way of closing the budget gap, budgeting last year to accrue at least £1million of savings, as well as prior to this having made cuts year on year. CMT had worked on their best estimate of what could be achieved given their view that the Council would want to maintain the present range of discretionary services. CMT proposals were not dissimilar from the Mouchel recommendations. In fact the Mouchel proposals did not bridge the budget gap of £3.1 million whereas the Cabinet/CMT proposals did. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; mso-outline-level:1;tab-stops:33.8pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap: simple;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:baseline"> Members asked what other proposals had been considered and rejected and the Chief Executive explained that virtually everything that was considered had been put forward.   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        Members asked whether the Mouchel strategic recommendations had been tried and tested in authorities in a similar position to Worcester. It was felt that Telford and Wrekin provided the most recent example of parishing which they had undertaken approximately 10 years ago. The idea of a wholly owned company was innovative, although it was felt that there was no reason why it should not work if it was done for the reasons set out in the Mouchel report. It was acknowledged that these ideas would require exploration and also the resources to carry out an exploration. However, the Chief Executive stressed that achieving the £3.1 million savings in 2009/10 had to be the priority.   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        The situation regarding capitalisation was clarified as being an accepted way forward for dealing with the costs of change and the exceptional one off costs which would be incurred in delivering the budget proposals. It was noted that the budget assumed that the capitalisation bid would be successful.   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        Members expressed concern that parishing would incur a greater level of beaurocracy and would require a high degree of resources and effort to make it work. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; mso-outline-level:1;tab-stops:33.8pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap: simple;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:baseline"> The Chief Executive stated that it was Government policy to decentralise to community level as far as possible. The Council had encouraged and supported local initiatives and therefore already had some infrastructure in place e.g the community companies. The baseline level of service would be set to be fair to all areas of Worcester in terms of what the Council could provide. The concept of community councils gave ownership to local people of what extra above this baseline they wanted to see and pay for in their communities and fitted with the Council as being an enabling authority.   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        There was some discussion concerning partnership working and whether joint working with the County Council was akin to becoming a unitary authority. The Leader stated that that debate had been held across the County and there had been no appetite for unitary reorganisation. There was no intention of looking at structural alterations at this stage. He felt that the County had demonstrated a commitment to joint working with a number of proposals already on the table and this would bring benefits to services in terms of sustainability and enhancement. Other partnerships were also vital in delivering the vision for the City and this was a debate which must be had. Whilst partners would support, for example, the development of a City Centre master plan or growing the visitor economy, these types of initiatives could not be funded and delivered by the Council alone and would have to be done in collaboration with partners. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:18.0pt;text-align:left; mso-outline-level:1;tab-stops:33.8pt;mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap: simple;text-autospace:none;vertical-align:baseline">   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        Concern was expressed regarding the governance arrangements associated with joint working and the potential proliferation of joint boards. There was a need to consider how to maintain an overview.   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        A question was asked about the proposals relating to the Member and committee structure. The Leader explained that he felt it was important that Members as well as management and staff were seen to be part of the proposals to tackle the budget gap. It would be necessary to have cross party discussions to establish what was appropriate for the committee structure including the scrutiny function.   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        Issues of capacity were raised in that service delivery and corporate working would still need to continue whilst the change programme was being taken forward. The Leader acknowledged that this was an issue, but the first priority must be to deliver the budget proposals and Members needed to support the resource proposals contained in the budget papers to achieve organisational transformation from where we are to where we wished to be.   It was acknowledged that the Performance Management and Budget Scrutiny Committee would be scrutinising the budget proposals in more detail during January as part of their annual scrutiny of the budget. However the Chairman suggested that there were a number of issues in relation to the proposals as follows:   <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        proposed savings were currently listed by service area rather than portfolio making it difficult to consider them in relation to corporate priorities. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        it was not clear how they had been tested against the achievement of priorities. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        it was not clear what process would be used for deciding on the proposals. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        the impact on services was not specified in any meaningful way. <p class="MsoNormal" align="left" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:left; text-indent:-18.0pt;mso-outline-level:1;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1;tab-stops:33.8pt list 36.0pt; mso-layout-grid-align:none;punctuation-wrap:simple;text-autospace:none; vertical-align:baseline"> *        it was not clear how the public were to be consulted on the proposals.   He suggested that there would be an impact on priorities but it was not clear what that impact would be or what the priorities would be for the coming year.   The Leader commented that the broad thrust had been to sustain as broad a level of services as possible and at the same time looking for efficiencies and income generation. He accepted that there would be an impact on jobs and staff but the proposals sought to minimise this as far as was possible. There was a need to achieve a 25% reduction in the back office function. Management would be stretched during this period but would also reduce in the medium term.   He agreed that some measures would be visible and there would be a noticeable difference in some levels of services e.g. parks. In other areas there would be changes but, for example, the proposals regarding Visit Worcester could be seen as an opportunity as well as a threat, whilst youth and community services would see provision improved.   The scrutiny of the proposals would be resumed the following evening at a scheduled meeting of the Performance Management and Budget Scrutiny Committee.      </div> </div> </td> </tr> </table> <div class="mgHelpLine"></div></div>

Minutes for Scrutiny Committee meeting, Dec 15 2008, 6.00PM

2010-04-23T19:24:35+01:00

http://committee.cityofworcester.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=147&MId=2139&Ver=4&J=1 Minutes for Scrutiny Committee meeting, Dec 15 2008, 6.00PM

http://openlylocal.com/documents/14821-Minutes-for-Scrutiny-Committee-meeting-Dec-15-2008-6-00PM