Issue - meetings

Background:

The report provided details of proposed revised internal governance arrangements following a review of the effectiveness of the governance and to reflect changes that had occurred with the Joint Venture with the Norse Group (Medway Norse) which was wholly owned by Norfolk County Council.

The Chairperson welcomed the work being carried out to ensure more effective governance and drew attention to paragraph 4.12 of the report.

The Partnership Director, Medway Norse Ltd expressed concern with bi-monthly meetings, preferring the Client Liaison Board to meet quarterly in parallel with the Medway Norse Board and Cabinet Sub Committee meetings, as it would create operational challenges as well as report duplication. It was noted that the Cabinet Sub Committee meetings for the forthcoming year had already been set up to align with the Medway Norse Board meeting dates for reporting purposes. The Chairperson explained that the request for bi-monthly meetings was to ensure more effective monitoring and dialogue.  It was suggested that the Client Liaison Board could meet at least quarterly, with an ambition to meet bimonthly. It was further suggested that it could meet as quarterly, with two additional Client Liaison Board meetings scheduled at specific times of the year to address particular service delivery issues. As a compromise it was suggested holding the Client Liaison Board and Medway Norse Board meetings on the same day where possible to improve efficiency and communication.

The Partnership Director, Medway Norse Ltd emphasised that Medway Norse Ltd as a company was more than frontline services.

It was suggested that Norse Commercial Services (NCS) representatives should attend the Cabinet Sub Committee as a shareholder board meeting to ensure full shareholder representation. It was noted that if this involved a change to the Sub Committee’s terms of reference this would be a reserved matter for Cabinet.

There was lengthy discussion on the fundamental purpose and role of the proposed Client Liaison Board, it was apparent that the proposals did not go far enough to clarify the distinct nature of the various roles of the Boards and Sub Committee, and this was therefore still causing some confusion. It was clear that more work needed to be carried out on ensuring that an effective, transparent and readily understandable governance structure was in place.

The Chairperson asked for feedback on the internal governance diagram (Appendix 1 to the report). There was satisfaction with the general structure, but it was noted that minor adjustments would be required to reflect any agreed changes.

Reasons:

The importance of transparency, collaboration, and shared understanding is required to ensure effective governance arrangements.