Issue - meetings

The Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Performance & Growth) is invited to comment on the contents of the report and make any comments for Cabinet.

Executive Councillor: L Davenport-Ray

The Panel sought clarification regarding the use of the word ‘endorse’ on the recommendation for Cabinet. They stated it was not within the Panel’s remit to do this. It was confirmed the term endorse was to seek support for the Report and to share their comments to the Cabinet, not to make a decision.

Disappointment was expressed that the report appeared not to be a plan for transformation, but a list of the projects already in place. It was felt the organisation should be working on ways to improve, where it currently stands and how the organisation can reach the level they aspire to. The Local Government Agency (LGA) website was referenced, particularly where it shows benchmarking capabilities, providing different capabilities to review and a scoring matrix. Further understanding was requested in how Officers are being set up towards Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) so they are in the best position for new job opportunities and how successful Huntingdonshire District Council (HDC) are regarding delivering services to residents.

The Panel heard that an enormous amount of work goes into delivering services to residents and continuously improving every year. They were advised this is a first draft of the plan and remains ongoing. Officers are developing the benchmarking data as per the LGA guidelines as part of the mid-year review and aspects of this report reflect a recommendation from the Corporate Peer Review.

It was acknowledged that the Workforce strategy incorporated ‘Culture’ which falls under one of the seven C’s of Transformation in the organisation, but the Panel were not comfortable that this be called a Transformation Plan.

Councillor Martin made a recommendation that the report have an alternative title such as “Project Tracker” or “Service Plan” as he felt it was not a Transformation Plan which he would like to be brought back for discussion at a later date.

The Vice Chair was pleased that all the information was in one report, however agreed with Councillor Martin that she felt the report did not reflect a Transformation plan.

Further insight into project classifications was requested and the Panel asked how other projects which do not meet the criteria are tracked. It was heard the project classifications were designed to bring distinction on how projects need to be categorised. These are based on elements such as risk, cost, delivery time and the impact on other services. The continuous improvement projects not classified as such are tracked elsewhere.

Further agreement was expressed with Councillor Martin’s point regarding the report showing legacy projects rather than an action plan for transformation.

It was reiterated to the Panel that Transformation and Reorganisation are separate subjects and should not be mistaken for directly linking to each other.

Attention was drawn to the Workforce strategy, particularly how the Council are attracting new talent and supporting wellbeing in the workforce. It was noted that it would have been beneficial to include details of this in the report.

The Vice Chair expressed her disappointment that the St Neots Riverside  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44