Agenda and minutes

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 35.

The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Orders 7(3) and 7(5).

There were no urgent items for consideration.

There were no declarations of interest.

There were no declarations made under Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16.

The Chief Executive reported that there were no petitions to be presented.

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:

 

• The background to CPA

 

• 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.

The Commission noted that:-

 

a)         The next meeting would be held at 10.30 a.m. on Thursday 13^th 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 5^th March 2003.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.30 p.m. – 4.04 p.m.                                                                 CHAIRMAN

3^rd February 2003