| 266 | RECORD OF THE MEETING |
| | | The record of the meeting on 7 May 2008 (Joint Meeting of all Committees) was signed by the Chairman as correct.
|
| The record of the meeting on 29 July 2008 was signed by the Chairman as correct with the following revision to minute 216 - Work Programme:
|
| The Committee agreed that to note in the minute that the spokesperson for the Labour Group had requested the items detailed in minute number 216 (g), (h) and (i).
|
|
|
| 267 | APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE |
| | | An apology for absence was received from Councillor Stamp. |
|
| 268 | DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST |
| | | Councillor Godwin declared a personal interest in agenda items 5(A) Community Safety Partnership Plan 2008-2011 and 5(C) Local area agreements - update and next steps, as he was appointed by the Council to serve on the Police Authority.
|
| Councillor Tony Goulden declared a personal interest in agenda items 5(A) Community Safety Partnership Plan 2008-2011 and 5(C) Local area agreements - update and next steps, as he was a member of Kent, Fire and Rescue Service.
|
|
|
| 269 | COMMUNITY SAFETY PARTNERSHIP PLAN 2008-2011 |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Community Safety Manager introduced the report, setting out the background to the plan, advising that this was the first time it had been submitted in the new format following new legislation requiring Crime and Disorder Partnerships to have a three year rolling plan which highlighted priority areas of work for Medway.
|
| The committee was advised that for this year's plan, the timetable for completion had restricted partner organisations with being able to provide the relevant information and it was therefore very police-orientated. However, next year's plan would expand the information provided.
|
| The plan had 12 priorities which had been chosen from a strategic assessment and Local Area Agreement (LAA) indicators, together with the National Policing Plan, information from partners and the communities together process (PACT).
|
| Members asked questions and made comments which included but were not limited to:
|
| | • | the quality and diversity of future consultations
|
| | • | concern at the lack of substance being communicated back to communities
|
| | • | no reference to the Policing Plan
|
| | • | future dialogue with the Police Authority
|
| | • | proposals to change the working hours of the community safety team.
|
|
|
| | > DIA appendix (pdf file 184.7kb) |
| | > Community Safety Partnership Plan report (pdf file 103.1kb) |
| | > CSP appendix (pdf file 452.6kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee noted the report and the progress made to date and also requested a report back to the Committee when the revised shift pattern system of hours for the community safety team had been finalised.
|
| The Committee recommended to Cabinet that:
|
| | (a) | future consultations are improved and broadened for next year's plan to include the Kent Police Authority;
|
| | (b) | the lead agencies are included in the plan for priorities 4, 7 and 9;
|
| | (c) | information about the one-stop shops is updated in the current plan;
|
| | (d) | information on Alcohol Control Zones is updated in the current plan.
|
|
|
| 270 | MUSEUM ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL POLICY 2008-2012 |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Tourism and Heritage Manager introduced the report, setting out the background to the policy, advising that it was required to be in place in time for the forthcoming National Accreditation inspection in early 2009. It was not a strategy document for the museum service but a policy for collecting and disposing of artefacts in the future.
|
| Officers had consulted with partners including other local museums, particularly the Historic Dockyard in Chatham and the Royal Engineers Museum.
|
| For proposals for future acquisitions within the policy it is intended to build on the strengths of the current collection and principally collect items of local interest, preferably items suitable for display rather than storage. Officers would look to secure grant funding where possible when considering the purchase of an item.
|
| Future disposals would only proceed when there were sound curatorial reasons for doing so. Any proceeds from disposal would be ring-fenced for future acquisitions.
|
| Members asked questions and made comments which included but were not limited to:
|
| | • | the clarity around who makes a decision on disposal of items - "with reference to Cabinet" quoted in the report was too vague. There should be clear and transparent thresholds in terms of financial limits for acquiring new items
|
| | • | section on Disposal Procedures 12f - the wording left open the possibility of funds being raised for the council through the disposal of assets and the emphasis of wording relating to potential disposal should be strengthened
|
| | • | insurance and value of the collection
|
| | • | potential for the museum's art collection to be displayed in other buildings
|
| | • | whether the catalogue of items could be available in digital format.
|
|
|
| | > Appendix - Museums Diversity Impact Assessment (pdf file 204.5kb) |
| | > Appendix - Museum Acquisition and Disposal Policy 2008-2012 (pdf file 562.5kb) |
| | > Museum Acquisition & Disposal Policy report (pdf file 148.2kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to congratulate the report author for the clarity of the report and to recommend the policy to the Cabinet with the following amendments:
|
| | (a) | there should be clarity of financial authority for delegations and decisions on acquiring and disposal of objects;
|
| | (b) | paragraph 12f Disposal Procedures of the policy - the word 'principally' to be omitted from the sentence;
|
| | (c) | the Dickens Swiss Chalet (currently in Eastgate House gardens) should be referenced in the policy document as an important museum object;
|
| | (d) | there should be an extension to the locations used for display of the collection across Medway to potentially include libraries and schools, particularly in Rainham and Gillingham;
|
| | (e) | the council should have a future aspiration of a dedicated museum building within Medway.
|
|
|
| 271 | LOCAL AREA AGREEMENTS - UPDATE AND NEXT STEPS |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Local Strategic Partnership Manager and Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator introduced the report advising that the Local Area Agreement (LAA) had been formally approved by the Secretary of State with 50 targets tackling difficult and cross-cutting challenges.
|
| The Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) was now considering the delivery mechanisms for the LAA which should be robust arrangements that the partner organisations could use to ensure that the LAA became a catalyst for change.
|
| In order to deliver the agreed targets, the LSP had made changes to the way it operated and had been streamlined to five thematic partnership groups. Each group was now responsible for the arrangements to deliver the outcomes, as well as monitor progress and ensure that work remained on track to achieve the targets.
|
| A copy of the indicators specifically relating to this Committee was handed round and Members were advised that the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee wished to take a lead role on National Indicators 39 and 40.
|
| The Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator introduced the next steps for Overview and Scrutiny Committees and referred to the initiatives undertaken across the country in relation to scrutiny of the LAA. The committee was advised of guidance published by the Centre for Public Scrutiny which showed four principles of effective scrutiny of LAA's detailed further in the report.
|
| Members were asked whether any further briefings needed to be commissioned or co-ordinated in relation to the specific Committee targets and to note that that it was proposed to build on the training sessions delivered earlier in the year by holding a facilitated event to bring together both the LSP and Overview and Scrutiny councillors. |
|
| | > LAA update and next steps (pdf file 323.0kb) |
| | > Additional papers (pdf file 822.5kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | note the LAA targets relevant to the committee;
|
| | (b) | request further development on the links between LAA and the Comprehensive Area Assessment;
|
| | (c) | note that a facilitated event would be organised later in the year;
|
| | (d) | note that a session for all Members will be organised to provide an introduction to the new performance management framework and software;
|
| | (e) | note that the proposed action/delivery plans would be submitted for consideration after 30 September 2008;
|
| | (f) | delegate the lead responsibility on National Indicators 39 and 40 to the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee;
|
| | (g) | delegate the lead responsibility on National Indicator 56 to the Children and Adults Overview and Scrutiny Committee;
|
| | (h) | notify the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee that it would be an interested party on National Indicator 155 with regard to its remit for housing matters. |
|
| 272 | CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS APRIL - JUNE 2008 (1ST QUARTER) |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Assistant Director, Front Line Services, introduced the report highlighting the improvement area shown in the table at paragraph 2.1 of the report. Freedom of Information requests had fallen below target for the first quarter of the year however, in June and July, 100% of requests had been responded to within the required 20 days.
|
The committee enquired about the sickness data set out in paragraph 3.3 of the report and asked why the working days lost to sickness absence within the directorate had increased from 0.42% in April 2007 to 0.70% in April 2008? Officers agreed to provide this information in a briefing note, advising that the data could include a small number of staff with extended sick leave which could give that effect.
|
|
| | > Critical Success Factors - 1st quarter (pdf file 575.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed to:
|
| | (a) | recommend to Cabinet that future Critical success factor reports provided in black and white format contain hatched-style columns rather than blocks of colour to make the tables easier to read;
|
| | (b) | request that the staff sickness data is split into two types - long term and short term sickness.
|
|
|
| 273 | WORK PROGRAMME |
| | Discussion: |
| | | The Chairman announced that he had been informed of a referral of a petition for this Committee's consideration and that he intended to schedule it for discussion on 21 October 2008.
|
| The Chairman also announced that the 'Medway Park: Award of Contract' report requested by the Committee for pre-decision scrutiny had been deferred until the Cabinet meeting of 14 October 2008. Therefore, if the Committee still wished to consider it, a special meeting would have to be held in early October 2008.
|
| The Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator was asked to ensure that the new dates included on the current work programme for the Portfolio Holders attendance was a reasonable period of time (about 10 - 12 months) since the last time they were held to account. |
|
| | > Work programme schedule (pdf file 130.0kb) |
| | > Work programme (pdf file 83.1kb) |
| | Decision: |
| | | The Committee agreed:
|
| | (a) | that the petition referred to the Committee for consideration would be scheduled for the meeting on 21 October 2008;
|
| | (b) | that a special meeting would be held at 5.30pm on Wednesday, 8 October 2008 to consider, as pre-decision scrutiny, a report on 'Medway Park: Award of contract';
|
| | (c) | to note that a report on the Corporation Street Development Framework had been added to the work programme for consideration on 21 October 2008. |
|