Agenda and minutes

The Panel to be notified of any substitute members.

The panel was informed that Councillor Craft had been replaced by Councillor Webster until the next annual general meeting.

Members are asked to declare any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.

No declarations of interest were made.

The notes of the meeting held on Thursday 6^th July 2006 are attached for information.

(Enclosure)

Noted.

The Scrutiny officer reported that in relation to action 91, the chief executive had referred this recommendation to the customer services manager, who had been invited to the attend during the meeting to update on this. Further to action 96, a portable closed loop induction system was being trialled and a demonstration would be made to some members shortly.

The portfolio holder for access and engagement asked if he could provide feedback throughout the meeting. This was agreed.

·          Notes from the Access and Modernisation Working Group

(Enclosure)

·          Final report from the Democratic Review Working Group

(Enclosure)

The scrutiny support officer highlighted the two recommendations from the working group. The portfolio holder for access and engagement explained that given the degree of change throughout the authority, it was logical to provide staff and councillors an area for rest and that this shared area would encourage engagement between the two.  The portfolio holder was asked how staff would be able to access the customer service centre during their lunch break. The portfolio holder replied that this was an operational issue and would be referred to the relevant service manager.

Conclusion:

To support the recommendations from the Access and Modernisation Working Group.

Report CSV44 by the Business Management Services Project Officer

(Enclosure)

The business management services project officer presented report CSV44, which had been appended to the agenda, and circulated a further update on frontfacing telephony statistics for August. Further statistics were also provided on numbers of telephone calls, appointments, emails and letters received. This information was available on the internet. She explained that August was a quiet month with September/October being much busier. Service managers, when embedded in the new posts, would also get information to be able to monitor their service. Work was underway to raise the profile of standards and customer service.

A member of the panel asked why the standards were inferior for August, if it was a quieter month. The officer explained that this being a traditional holiday month, staff levels were often reduced during this month.

The panel was concerned that too many calls were not being answered. The officer was asked about how staff dealt with transferring calls. She answered that transferring calls was not set-up as a matter of course because some offices worked better on a group pick-up system. Voicemail was a good final solution to reduce the numbers of unanswered calls, but some service managers, for various reasons, had been avoiding using voicemail.

The portfolio holder explained that he whilst there was significant improvement to be had, 100% calls could only be answered by using an automated call-queuing system. He considered this latter approach to be poor customer service.

The strategic director spoke to the panel about the ‘talk to me’ protocol, which was currently being finalised.  Refresher sessions for managers on using the telephones, followed up with core briefings and team meetings, was considered a better solution to encouraging better use of the telephones than to just email a policy to all staff. Ways to advise customers on when our busy and quiet periods are was also underway.

The panel was very satisfied to learn that the call centre and switchboard service standard statistics were still very high.

Conclusion:

(1)  To accept the report and suggest that the use of voicemail, as a final option to reduce missed calls, be encouraged.

(2)  To continue to be appraised with monitoring results.

In the absence of members of the working group, the scrutiny support officer presented the recommendations of the democratic review working group. The chairman explained that it was not his intention to finalise the panel’s view of each recommendation at this meeting, as he considered that some needed further clarification from the group. Each was discussed in turn by the panel:

Recommendation 1: An example of the proposed publication was distributed. The panel discussed how this would be distributed.

Conclusion:

To support this recommendation in principle but would consider the circulated document and evaluate for the next meeting of the panel.

Recommendation 2: The scrutiny support officer explained that the first online jury had been a pilot and considered the council’s priorities. The working group was suggesting that this should be an annual process. The initial funding from the Department of Constitutional Affairs was provided until March 2007. The portfolio holder explained that the council may have a good case to apply for further funding if the project was successful in engaging with the public. 

Conclusion:

To support this recommendation.

Recommendation 3: The working group had been comprised of a number of members of the public and this had worked successfully. The working group considered that this should be encouraged for other working groups. The scrutiny officer explained that the constitution already allowed for this. The panel therefore supported this recommendation but emphasised that were members of the public to be invited to join working groups, the council must be able to show that it will seriously consider their recommendations.

Conclusion:

To support this recommendation and encourage DSP Chairmen to welcome members of the public onto scrutiny working groups.

Recommendation 4: Members of the panel were concerned about the financial implications of this recommendation. They considered the potential implications of exclusion and the current policy for councillors. They accepted the principle of the recommendation but made a slight amendment as noted below. 

Conclusion:

To support the principle of this recommendation but amend the last sentence to read: “This would cover agreed expenses”. 

Recommendation 5: The scrutiny support officer explained that a lot of further work could be done by the council on local democracy week. It was intended that the next online citizens jury, which was intended to be held in a local school, would coincide with local democracy week.  The portfolio holder added that he had done a lot of work on identifying what people expected from their councillors; this was to be respectable citizens in the community. He was therefore not a supported of the “I am a councillor get me out of here” element of local democracy week. The panel agreed with the principle of the recommendation and the thoughts of the portfolio holder that citizens engagement projects should be light hearted with not a silly extreme.

Conclusion:

To support the recommendation, subject to the removal of “I am a Councillor Get Me Out of Here and”

Recommendation 6: The panel  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

·          Report CEX288 to council on 28^th April 2005

·          Extract from council minutes – 28^th April 2005

·          Extract from resources dsp minutes – 24^th May 2005 

·          Extract from cabinet minutes – 6^th June 2005

·          Report CEX293 to council on 23^rd June 2005

·          Extract from council minutes – 23^rd June 2005

·          Extract from finance scrutiny working group report – July 2006

The panel scrutinised the decision made by council on 23^rd June 2005 in relation to member training by reviewing the relevant paperwork associated with the decision and questioning the strategic directors, training manager and the portfolio holder for organisational development.

The chairman explained that this scrutiny exercise had been referred to the panel from the scrutiny coordinating group. He considered that this decision, which essentially required cabinet and panel members to undergo compulsory training, was not legally binding. The panel scrutinised the wording of the decision and concluded that it did make member training for panel and cabinet members compulsory.

The panel members expressed their initial views of the decision. There was concern that it prevented the democratic right of members to represent their wards on the cabinet and panels and that it was the role of voters to decide the competency of whom they elected to the council. The alternative view was that a councillor might not be able to effectively represent their people if they were not adequately equipped with knowledge and skills.

The organisational development portfolio holder explained that in light of value for money and use of resources assessments, member and officer time was a valuable commodity and should therefore not be wasted by councillors who did not understand the fundamental elements of cabinet or scrutiny work. She later referred to statistics that some members present at the meeting had only attended one training module since their election. The training manager expressed a similar view in that there was a certain knowledge that councillors needed because recommendations and decisions should be made from an informed position. One of the strategic directors observed that legal advice had been sought for the initial recommendation to council. Barrister’s advice had been that provision could be made within the constitution and the code of conduct to require cabinet and panel members to attend certain training within twelve months of their appointment. This, however, was disputed by some members of the panel as it was a ‘grey area’. Another strategic director explained that in terms of members’ responsibility for good governance it may be advisable to require members to attend certain training. The director cautioned against undermining the best intentions of council’s decision to raise members’ standards.

Some panel members considered that council’s decision ignored the value of hands-on training, but a strategic director explained that the fact that the training would have to be undertaken within 12 months demonstrated an understanding of experience as well as training. A member, whose profession was an estate agent, explained that his profession was often criticised for not having compulsory standards. The council was open to similar criticism if it did not require certain training.

In concluding the scrutiny of this decision, it was apparent that there was no consensus on the issue. The majority of members supported the original decision of council, whilst a minority were of strong opinion that the decision was undemocratic and could not be supported legally.

The chairman  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

(Enclosure)

The scrutiny officer reported that he had recently received statistics for August and these showed no material change to those circulated with the agenda.

The panel questioned the decline in the %PR outputs to the media that were actually published. It was assumed that this was because they were not considered newsworthy. Officers explained that this was not necessarily the case: the more outputs produced would make it harder to have 100% published and some releases were ‘bad news’ stories and so was of no detriment to the council that they were not published.

Conclusion:

That the performance indicator relating to %PR outputs to the media that were actually published (SK74) be changed to a meaningful statistic.

(Enclosure)

This was noted and a few updates made.  

The meeting closed at 16.48.