Agenda item

The report explains the process which led to the provision of governor services being moved from Medway Commercial Group to another provider and the current arrangements in place to ensure the Council meets its statutory duties for maintained schools.

Discussion:

Members considered a report which explained the process which led to the provision of governor services being moved from Medway Commercial Group (MCG) to another provider (the Education People) and the current arrangements in place to ensure the Council met its statutory duties for maintained schools.

The Head of Education advised that MCG had communicated the change in the arrangements for the provision of governor services to all schools. In addition, he had met with the Head teachers of secondary and primary schools to explain the change and how to access the new service.

A Member asked when the Head of Education had been informed that the staff delivering governor services had resigned, how much notice the Council had received of MCG’s decision to provide the service through the Education People and whether any concerns had been raised prior to this at the monthly monitoring meetings between the Council and MCG. It was also queried whether the additional costs incurred were being met by MCG and whether MCG were recruiting for new staff to provide governor services. The Head of Education advised that he became aware of the staffing issues around June 2018. After the two members of staff resigned there was a need to put in place a service and the additional costs were being met by the Council, with MCG now having no role in delivering governor services and were not recruiting new staff.

A Member queried whether the service handed back had improved and the Head of Education confirmed he had no concerns about the service which had been handed back.

A Member asked what the rationale had been to transfer governor services to MCG and whether any checks had been made into the capacity of MCG to deliver what was a number of disparate services. The point was made that the specialist service provided by a very small number of staff, who subsequently left MCG, meant the latter would not have the same flexibility to respond as the Council would. This was a risk for both existing services and potential future transfers. In response, the Chief Legal Officer advised that the decision to transfer governor services had been taken by Cabinet in June 2017 where a business case had been considered. This information would be circulated to Members of the Committee.

A Member made the point that scrutiny of the various alternative models of service delivery agreed by the Council had still not been fully embedded. The Chief Legal Officer commented that Cabinet Members who served as directors on Medway Norse and Council owned companies were now advised they could remain in the meeting when reports on the latter were considered. In terms of improvements in how overview and scrutiny committees scrutinised these bodies he was happy to consider any proposed improvements. A Member made the point that the only way the Council could continue to deliver high quality services, due to the reductions in finance, was to look at alternative models of delivering services.

A Member queried the position of the Chairman of MCG given he had indicated he would not stand for re-election to the Council in May. The Chief Legal Officer advised that the Member was no longer Chairman of MCG and would stand down as a Director at the end of March. It would then be for the Council to appoint a new Director.

A Member commented that the change in the arrangements should have been communicated to Members and it was unacceptable to learn of the change from schools. The Chief Legal Officer apologised for any embarrassment caused and explained that decisions on what changes should be communicated to Members were made on a case by case basis. However, lessons from this episode would be learned for the future.

A Member commented that this issue raised a wider concern about Council services transferred to Medway Norse and MCG which were then handed back to the Council, which appeared to be a growing trend.

With regard to the review into how the service should be provided after this 12 month contract had ended, a Member queried why MCG would need to be involved if the decision was to renew the contract with the Education People.

The Head of Education advised that MCG had handed back the service to the Council and the contract with the Education People, which had been brokered by MCG, was being managed by the Council.

MCG advised that lessons had been learned and business continuity plans were in place for critical services. Going forward, in the case of a critical service provided by a small number of staff, MCG would first speak to the Council on the best way forward if something similar was to happen again. Where additional services were proposed to be transferred then due diligence would be carried out and a business continuity plan drawn up.

It was suggested that the Business Support O&S Committee be asked to take stock of all services transferred back to the Council by MCG and Medway Norse and review the subsequent decisions taken by the Council.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)     note the update provided, and;

b)     recommend to the Business Support Overview & Scrutiny Committee that they request a list of all Council services transferred to MCG and Medway Norse which had then been handed back to the Council, together with details of what action the Council had subsequently taken.