Venue: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield
Contact: Mr. M.I. Seedat (Tel: 0116 265 6037)
Email: mseedat@leics.gov.uk
Items
No. |
Item |
54. |
Question Time.
Minutes:
The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received
under Standing Order 35.
|
55. |
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5).
Minutes:
The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received
under Standing Orders 7(3) and 7(5).
|
56. |
Any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent.
Minutes:
There were no urgent items for consideration.
|
57. |
Declarations of interests.
Minutes:
There were no declarations of interest.
|
58. |
Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.
Minutes:
There were no declarations made under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure
Rule 16.
|
59. |
Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 36.
Minutes:
The Chief Executive reported that there were no petitions to
be presented.
|
60. |
Comprehensive Performance Assessment. PDF 18 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Commission considered a report of the
Chief Executive concerning the outcome of the Comprehensive Performance
Assessment (CPA) carried out by the Audit Commission on all upper tier
authorities in 2002. A copy of the report marked ‘A’, is filed with these
minutes.
In introducing the report, the Chief
Executive referred to:
- Changes in the process of assessment
which had been introduced during the course of the inspection and lack of
clarity about the scoring system.
- Concerns about some of the methodology
used by the Audit Commission. For
example, although the Social Services Department had recently been awarded
three stars by the Social Services Inspectorate, it had only been scored
three out of (a maximum) four for CPA purposes.
- His concern that the inspection had
been too concerned with process at the expense of outcomes.
- His concern that insufficient credit
had been given for work in hand, eg. on the Community Strategy, within the
corporate block, whereas “refreshment” of scores had been allowed within
the services block.
- The self – assessment produced by the
Council as part of the CPA inspection process that had identified areas
where further action was needed.
This compared closely with the issues identified by the CPA
inspection for further action.
- The process of refreshment referred to
at paragraph 8 of the report had failed to take into account significant
progress which had been made on a number of key issues, such as the
development of the Community Strategy during the period of the inspection.
- A meeting scheduled for the following
week with a range of Inspectors to discuss an action plan arising from the
findings of the CPA inspection.
- The cost to the Council of preparing
for and managing the CPA inspection and process.
During the ensuing discussion the following points emerged from
questions and comments:
- Dr. Pollard expressed disappointment
that the Council had not addressed its community leadership role as
referred to in the CPA report. He
suggested the Council’s approach to developing a Cultural Strategy and
lack of progress in developing arrangements for scrutinising NHS bodies as
evidence. Dr. Pollard also said
that the Council had never had a corporate strategy and that this was
further evidence. In response, the
Chief Executive reminded members that the Council had approved a Medium
Term Corporate Strategy in November 2001, in part as a pre-requisite to
developing with partners a Leicestershire Community Strategy. The Cultural Strategy was another
initiative which was being developed through the partnership
approach. The matter had recently
been debated by the County Council and, whilst he shared many of the
reservations expressed by members about the Cultural Strategy, it had
nevertheless been prepared in accordance with Government guidelines and
was not something for which the County Council had sole
responsibility. The Chief
Executive also advised that Government guidelines on scrutiny of the NHS by
local authorities were still awaited in final form but, in the meantime,
preparatory work was being undertaken with the City Council and NHS
bodies. District Council Leaders
had been informed and they had given their agreement to the County
Council’s approach. The matter had
also been discussed and the approach agreed between the Group Leaders in
the County Council and at the Scrutiny Reference Group.
- Reference was made by Mr. Bill to
weaknesses identified in the CPA report with regard to prioritisation, ambition,
performance management and investment.
The Chief Executive said that it was important to recognise that
definitions used by the Audit Commission did not necessarily reflect
everyday understanding of words such as ‘ambition’. A common criticism of the Council in
the report ... view the full minutes text for item 60.
|
61. |
Date of next and subsequent meeting.
Minutes:
The Commission noted that:-
a) The next meeting would be held at 10.30
a.m. on Thursday 13th February 2003 to consider the Cabinet’s final
revenue budget proposals;
b) The subsequent meeting of the Commission
would be held at 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday 5th March 2003.
2.30 p.m. – 4.04
p.m. CHAIRMAN
3rd
February 2003
|