BOROUGH OF KETTERING

MONITORING AND AUDIT COMMITTEE

Meeting held: 3rd February, 2004

Present:	Councillor Hales (Chair), Councillor Jones (Deputy Chair), Councillors Bayes, Burton, Coe, Corazzo, Harrison, J. Henson and Tebbutt.

Also Present:	Councillors Don, Freer, Malin, Padwick and Whyte.

03.MA.36	APOLOGIES  AND SUBSTITUTIONS

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Beale for whom Councillor Corazzo was acting as substitute. 

Councillors Bayes,  J. Henson and Jones, as members of the Task and  Finish Group that considered Service Level Agreement Grants to Voluntary Bodies in October 2003 had been advised that they should not be involved in the consideration of item A1, in accordance with Rule 3 of the Overview and Scrutiny Rules of the  Council’s Constitution.

Councillors Wiley, Anderson and Hollobone acted as their respective substitutes for item A1 only. 

03.MA.37	MINUTES

RESOLVED	that the minutes of the meeting held on 25th November 2003, be approved and signed by the Chair.

03.MA.38	DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillors Bayes, J.Henson and Jones confirmed that, as members of the Task and Finish Group, they had withdrawn from the committee during the consideration of item A1.

03.MA.39	OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME

Noted.

03.MA.40	GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES – ALLOCATIONS- REVIEW OF PROCESS (A1)

	As a result of a request from Councillor D. Whyte, under Paragraph 9 of the Council's Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules, members received a report in respect of a scrutiny of the process adopted by the Council's Voluntary Sector Service Level Agreement (SLA) Grants Task and Finish Group in its recommendations for the allocation of grants to voluntary bodies at meetings held in October 2003. 

	The report outlined background information in respect of the Council's policy regarding the provision of grant-aid over a three year period to voluntary sector organisations. It also provided historical detail in respect of previous use of the process, and outlined the background to how the existing policy had developed. The report provided detail of the process adopted in 2003, and confirmed that it had been intended to mirror, as far as possible, the process used when such grants were previously awarded in 2000. Copies of various papers issued in respect of the process were provided, in addition to the minutes of the Group’s meetings. Details of the process linking the outcomes of the Group's deliberations to its recommendations being submitted to the Council's Executive were provided, as well as the processes adopted by the Executive in making its final decisions on the amount of grants awarded.

	Initially, members were appraised of the process to be adopted in consideration of the item before them. It was noted that although witnesses could not be required to attend, members representing each of the Political groups on the Task and Finish Group (Councillors Jones and Gordon), had been invited to provide background detail to assist the Committee in its consideration of the matter. A number of points were clarified by the Monitoring Officer, particularly why members of the SLA Task and Finish Group had removed themselves from the Committee for this Agenda item, the acceptability of the involvement of a member who had not attended the Task and Finish Group remaining in the committee, and an account of why an Executive member had been at the first meeting of the Task and Finish Group, what was wrong with that and what had been done to remedy it.

	Members considered the report before them, and asked questions of Councillors Jones and Gordon and officers in relation to it. It was noted that Councillors Jones and Gordon received separate training in respect of the grants allocation process, but that both had felt competent to consider the applications. It was also noted that the process was linked with the Council's Community Plan by way of information provided on the organisations' bidding forms, but was constrained to a certain extent by being paper-based and having to follow laid down procedures. Advice of a general nature had been provided by officers to the Group.

	Mr G. Lane, representing Kettering Centre for the Unemployed addressed the Committee under the Council's Right to Speak Policy. Mr Lane expressed concern with regard to the questions contained in the bidding documents, and the process in which these documents had been considered. He felt that more advice and training should have been provided for organisations completing the forms, and also that more information should have been provided on the actual process itself, in particular the re-weighting of the results of the applications. In thanking Mr Lane for his comments, it was noted that some of the points he had raised, had already been taken on board.

	In response to a question, members were informed that the Task and Finish Group had been advised that as part of the process, any prior knowledge of organisations should  not be considered as significant when reviewing applications, which to a certain extent constrained the process.

	Peter Nix of the Kettering Volunteer Centre also addressed the Committee. Mr Nix said that Voluntary Organisations in the Borough were working in partnership with the Council in line with the Community Plan. However, for the grants process, there had been no review or evaluation meetings, no feedback in respect of the scoring of bids and no discussions about the future of the process.

Members noted that a meeting with Voluntary Sector Organisations had been arranged in the near future to address such issues. It was noted that if an SLA grant-aided organisation was failing to meet the criteria of its agreement, then a report would be forwarded to the Executive in that respect. Monitoring was carried out on a quarterly basis, and meetings with officers held when and where appropriate.

	The Chair then invited Councillor Whyte to address the Committee. Councillor Whyte expressed three concerns about the process. Firstly, he considered the initial meeting of the Group was unconstitutional, as a member of the Executive was appointed as a substitute. However, he accepted that this was a mistake that was corrected at the earliest opportunity. Notwithstanding that, and the advice of the Monitoring Officer that he was satisfied that the approach taken was reasonable, he still considered that, for the sake of transparency, a new Group should have been convened. Secondly, he believed that the parameters for the Group meeting on 9th October 2003  had been set outside of its meeting by its Conservative members, particularly in view of the apparent arbitrary nature of the agreed cut-off point for organisations to be awarded grant-aid (65% of all applicants), the amount of the budget to be used in the recommendations for the awards (70%), and the apparent lack of discussion into the rationale for this shown in the minutes of the Task and Finish Group meeting. Thirdly, Councillor Whyte considered that there was a lack of transparency in the process, evidenced by the lack of questioning as to why decisions had been made, such as not using all of the allocated budget, and the fact that principles were set out and re-stated at the final meeting of the Group. The broad assertions made by Councillor Whyte  were challenged by some members of the Committee.

	Councillor Padwick addressed the Committee. He expressed his concern at the process for re-weighting of the scores, the lack of clarity with regard to how it was done, and who did it. He stated that organisations believed that it was a secretive process carried out behind closed doors, and that the whole process could have been carried out in a more imaginative way, with more stakeholder involvement. He requested that consideration be given to a review of the process being carried out independently.

	In respect of the re-weighting, members noted that it had taken place at the meeting of the Task and Finish Group held on 9th October 2003. The re-weighting had been prepared by officers and was referred to members of the Group for approval of the results.
		
	Members then discussed the importance of confidentiality in the process and  noted that this was stressed at the meeting of the Group held on 9th October. The Group had lengthy discussions in respect of the release of information at its third meeting. Unfortunately, information had been leaked, although it had not proved possible to trace the source of the leak. 

	In concluding their consideration of the matter, the Committee asked further questions of Councillor Jones and Gordon in respect of the process, particularly in respect of the decision to not allocate all of the available funds. In response to a question regarding his view on the application from Grange Community School, Councillor Gordon stated that he had opposed the grant because he considered funding for schools should be supplied by local education authorities, and that by granting such an application, could be precedential.
		
	Councillor Gordon also expressed concern with regard to meetings being held during the day,  potentially inhibiting attendance by members. He also felt that applicants should have been allowed to address the Task and Finish Group. He was concerned that the scoring situation was open to personal interpretation and thought that the re-weighting system needed clearer explanation. He considered that all members of the Council should receive training in respect of this issue. He believed that it was essential for grants to remain for a three year period to ensure continuity, and that any terms of reference should be agreed by a scrutiny committee. 

	Councillor Jones felt that meetings should continue to be held in the daytime. She did not agree that the scoring was open to personal interpretation, as guidance notes were provided to assist members. She felt that there should be more involvement of organisations through the process, and that it would be more helpful if there were references back to organisations for further information wherever appropriate. If any review of the process was to take place, then whoever carried out the review should ensure that this was taken on board. It was important for the process to be seen to be above suspicion.

	Members of the Committee expressed concern about the perceived lack of procedure and protocol that had been used for considering this report, and felt that the system needed reviewing. It was felt that the system had been passed from one administration to the succeeding one, and that value had been added to the process by further meetings with Voluntary Sector Groups with the Executive, once the Task and Finish group had presented its recommendations. Consequently, it was 

		RESOLVED		that:-

i)	Colleagues on the Task and Finish Group and the Executive be thanked for the way in which they have carried out their duties, particularly given the constraints placed upon the Task and Finish Group which 	have been heard at the meeting;

ii)	the Executive be recommended to carry out a review of the way in which the Council funds the voluntary sector; and

iii)	the review is conducted by an independent person or consultant working to agreed Terms of Reference.

03.MA.41	WORKING TIME DIRECTIVE (A2)

A report was submitted which requested members to scrutinise steps taken to conform with legislation governing the hours people work, and its impact at Kettering Borough Council.

The report was broken down into three main sections:

1	A summary of the Working Time Regulations as they apply to the Council
2	An analysis of the steps in place to ensure compliance
3	An indication of potential changes currently being considered in the law

Members questioned officers in respect of the potential to shorten the seventeen week reference period, the impact on Facilities management staff and the status limit for exemptions from the Regulations.

The committee noted the relationship between working hours and the Council’s Flexi-time scheme in respect of this issue, and the role of the Employment Committee in considering any changes to the scheme.

The impact of the requirement for the provision of emergency service was noted, and the possibility of technical breaches of the Regulations.

Members noted that there was currently an initiative being undertaken with regard to sickness levels, and also the role the Performance Review scheme played in the hours worked by staff.

The impact of working hours of part-time staff, or those staff with an additional job was discussed, although it was noted that this was a difficult area for any enforcement of the Regulations.

RESOLVED	that the report, and the potential requirement for a policy revision should the European Parliament change the Regulations over the coming months, be noted.

03.MA.42	CONDITION OF MUNICIPAL OFFICES  (A3)

A report was submitted which provided members with an update of the condition of the Municipal Offices, and which critically examined the building’s long -term future as a base for Council activities. The Committee had requested the report having previously considered the matter in January 2003,  and had requested options available to the Council in the longer term.

The report commented upon the current office environment, occupancy of the site, access, accommodation and storage, safety, staff issues and outlined the likely future requirements in respect of IT, working methods and partnership with other key public sector organisations.

An assessment of identified costs for building system works, internal and external fabric works, updating the fire alarm systems and improving security systems was provided. Members were also appraised regarding, spending on the building in the last year and the likelihood of  progressively higher maintenance costs year on year being incurred.

Members expressed concern with regard to the implications and costs incurred in the future by failing to meet standards set by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and the any lack of effectiveness of both the fire alarm and security systems.

It was also considered that the Council should be looking to the medium term, with particular regard to the impact on it of the Milton Keynes:South Midlands development, and any change to ownership of the Council’s Housing Stock.

Members also felt that more information was required with regard to the provision of low energy lighting, thermostat controlled heating throughout the building and wire-free systems. It was noted that the building had not been valued recently, although any eventually realised value would be conditional on the type of usage. With regard to storage, members were informed that there was a move towards all-electronic storage, although there were statutory responsibilities on the Council to retain some paper-based documentation for periods of time.

In considering the future of the building, the discussion turned to the desire to date to look at the possibility of combining the Council’s current customer services centre with a wider range of other agencies, and the possibility of co-locating KBC office activities with those of other public service agencies who were known to be looking at their accommodation needs as well. Support for a single public service access point and for combined “back office” functions had been expressed at the “State of the Borough” meeting in September 2003 and subsequently by the Executive Committee within the Council’s corporate priorities for 2004/5.   

Having considered the issue, it was 

	RESOLVED		that:-

i)	a feasibility and options study be funded and commissioned with the aim of

a)	developing a revised customer service centre integrated with key partners and appropriate infrastructure to provide effective back office support; and
b)	developing a public sector park in partnership with other key public sector organisations;

ii)	a medium term strategy be formulated and included in the feasibility and options study;
and

iii)	the results of the study be presented to the appropriate committee by July 2004.

03.MA.43	PERFORMANCE IN DEVELOPMENT CONTROL  (A4)

A report was submitted which updated the Committee in respect of the progress made towards improved performance in the Development Control Service Unit. 

Councillor Padwick was in attendance at the Committee, and addressed members in respect of the following items :-

1	Jargon in the report
2	Cost of Appeals
3	Guidance and Training for Parish Councils

The comments with regard to jargon were noted.

Members were appraised of the background to costs being awarded in respect of appeals, and approximate figures for recent cases. With regard to relationships with Parish Councils, members were informed that it was intended to draw Parish Councils closer in terms of consultation. A letter would be sent to Parish Councils clarifying the way in which their comments on planning applications were responded to by Planners. It was likely that the User group meetings detailed in the report would involve representatives of Parish Councils, and that training would be provided if resources and priorities permitted.

Members were also appraised with regard to progress with alternative procedures for dealing with Section 106 agreements, the use of trainee Planning Officers and the notification of ward members where appropriate in respect of User Groups. It was also noted that the performance of agency staff used by the Unit was good.

	RESOLVED		that:-

i)	the report be noted; 

ii)	officers respond to the ODPM consultation paper identified, and in particular make the point that the Council is fully committed to improvement and to achieving targets, with a strategy in place to this end; and

iii)	 in the light of this the ODPM be requested to acknowledge that  the record of performance before June 2003 is not a reflection of where the Council is now.

03.MA.44	REVENUES PERFORMANCE (A5)

A report was submitted which updated members in respect of the performance within the Income and Debt management Unit up until the end of December 2003.

It was noted that the Council Tax collection rate was above target and better than this time last year. Benefit claim processing  times continued to improve. It was also noted that Kettering Borough had been used as part of a Research Study carried out by the Department of Work and Pensions. Additionally, the Government Minister for that department was expected to visit the Council shortly.

Members congratulated staff in the Unit on their performance.

03.MA.45	HOUSING ARREARS (A6)

A report was submitted which provided members with key performance information on current and former tenants rent arrears, and advised on remedial action taken.

Members noted that the Rent Arrears team was now fully staffed with Borough Council employees.

Having considered the report, it was

	RESOLVED		           that :-

i)	the issue of write-offs be discussed at the next meeting of the Committee;	

ii)	More information on the Rent and Business Support Team be provided to the next meeting;

iii)	A tenant representative of the Tenants Forum be invited to the next meeting of this committee to share information with regard to rent arrears, and the views of that body on their collection.

03.MA.46	PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT DATA (A7)

Members had received the Key Performance Information Booklet for February 2004.

It was noted that Local Performance Indicators 19A and 19 B in respect of the market share of housing and non-housing building control work were becoming largely irrelevant, as some private sector operators were either unwilling or unable to provide information to assist with the formulation of these indicators.

Additionally, it was noted that the list of key performance indicators had not been revised recently.

It was also noted that measures had been put in place to improve performance with regard to payment of invoices, and it was anticipated that there would be an early upturn in these figures.

In view of the above, it was 

RESOLVED             that:- 

 i)	Local Performance Indicators (LPI) 19A and 19B be replaced with an indicator that reflected a more qualitative or customer-oriented approach;

                                 ii)	the existing LPIs be reviewed and replaced by LPIs relating to existing corporate priorities. 

(The meeting started at 7.00pm and ended at 10:05pm)

Signed________________________________________________
Chair

iw