Agenda and minutes

To record the attendance of Substitute Members, if any, who have been authorised to attend in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 17(1), with notification having been given to the proper Officer before the start of the meeting and to receive apologies for absence.

The attendance of Substitute Members who had been authorised to attend in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 17(1) was recorded as referred to above with apologies for absence having been given by Councillors Matthew Barber, Andrew Crawford, Joyce Hutchinson, Sue Marchant and Janet Morgan.

To adopt and sign as a correct record the Section I Minutes of the Meeting of the Scrutiny Committee held on 14 February 2008.  (attached)

The Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 February 2008 were adopted and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:-

Minute SC.67 at the end of paragraph 2, the following paragraph to be inserted,

“Councillor Halliday expressed concern that the report of the Working Party had been altered after its approval by the Working Party and before its circulation to the Scrutiny Committee without notification to, or approval by, members of the Working Party. Councillor Crawford, another member of the Working Party expressed similar concerns. The Chairman said that she had agreed to the alterations and regretted that other Working Party members had not been consulted.”

To receive any declarations of Personal or Personal and Prejudicial Interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting. 

In accordance with Part 2 of the Local Code of Conduct and the provisions of Standing Order 34, any Member with a personal interest must disclose the existence and nature of that interest to the meeting prior to the matter being debated.  Where that personal interest is also a prejudicial interest, then the Member must withdraw from the room in which the meeting is being held and not seek improperly to influence any decision about the matter unless he/she has obtained a dispensation from the Standards Committee.

Councillor Terry Quinlan declared a personal interest in Agenda item 9, in that his daughter was currently employed by Agresso.

To receive notification of any matters, which the Chairman determines, should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances, which have made the matters urgent, and to receive any announcements from the Chairman.

None.

Any statements and/or petitions from the public under Standing Order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting.

None.

Any questions from members of the public under Standing Order 32 will be asked at the meeting.

None.

To receive Referrals under the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules or the Budget and Policy Framework Procedure Rules.

None.

To consider any responses of the Executive to reports of this Committee, together with any references for consideration by this Committee (if any).

None.

To discuss the report of the Informal Agresso Working Group with Councillors Mrs Mary de Vere, Tony de Vere and Richard Farrell.

The Committee had invited Councillors Mary de Vere, Tony de Vere and Richard Farrell to attend the meeting to discuss the findings of the Agresso Working Party.

A list of questions had previously been circulated and formed the basis of the discussion.

It was confirmed that the Vale had not appointed a “Champion” to look after its interests, however there were suitably qualified Officers and Board Members involved in the project.

Councillor Farrell commented that of the Working Party’s “Lessons”, the appointment of a “Critical Friend”, at paragraph (9), was one which would have made a difference to the successful implementation of the project. This person would have been able to scrutinise the contract and it was likely that this would have led to a better outcome.

In response to a question as to who drafted the contract, the Strategic Director confirmed that SODC had drafted the specification with assistance from a consultant and a lawyer. In terms of whether the Vale was confident that the specification met its requirements it was confirmed that Officers had checked the specification and had in fact suggested Agresso, as this was the financial system in use at the Vale, whilst giving those submitting tenders the opportunity to suggest a competitor, it was an open specification.

In response to a question as to whether the contract specified which version of Agresso would be implemented, the Strategic Director confirmed that the Vale had made it known that version 5.4 was in use; however the Vale did not specify a preference for 5.4 or 5.5. He advised that the contract was silent on whether it should be 5.4 or 5.5.

Councillor Tony de Vere advised the Committee that he had been involved when the Vale had introduced Agresso initially and had a “champion” type role. He considered that it was very important that a quality project manager be involved in projects to keep a close eye on what was happening. He advised that it was his belief that a project manager would have been aware of the problems with version specification, however did not consider that a member champion would have necessarily have made a difference.

One Member questioned whether Councillor Tony de Vere was confident that the proposed Waste Partnership would not go down the same route as Agresso implementation.  Councillor Tony de Vere confirmed that lessons had been learned, there were quality people on the team and the same problems would not happen again.

In response to a question as to whether the Executive members considered that the Vale was the junior partner in the project, Councillor Tony de Vere advised that in negotiations and strategic decision making, he did not believe that the Vale was a junior partner. He accepted that in project management terms SODC made decisions as the lead authority.

The Strategic Director advised that the Vale and SODC were equal partners as far as the contract was concerned, however SODC had taken the lead on this project as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

To receive and consider report 181/07 of the Senior Management Team.  A copy of this report was appended to the Executive's agenda for its meeting on 4 April 2008.  Please bring this agenda with you to the meeting. 

The Committee received and considered the contents of report 181/07 of the Senior Management Team.

It was noted that in general terms, performance had improved. The Committee considered the Best Value Performance Indicators contained within the report. The Strategic Director advised that there was likely to be an improvement against BVPI 8 with the implementation of a fully functioning Agresso system as disputed supplier invoices would be excluded from the performance statistics, in accordance with the statutory BVPI regulations.

With respect to BVPI 79 (b) (i), it was confirmed that Capita, who were responsible for achieving this target, had underperformed and may be penalised.

One Member questioned the relevance of BVPIs 127(a) and 127(b), given that the Vale had no control over the commission of violent crimes or robberies. It was explained that this BVPI had been classed as an “indicator”, rather than a target and it was accepted that the Vale had limited influence on the result of these indicators. Another Member advised that there was an element of control in education and preventative measures.

It was confirmed by the Principal Performance Management Officer that the BVPI’s were shortly to be replaced by a new set of national indicators.

To receive and consider report 182/07 of the Principal Performance Management Officer.  A copy of this report was appended to the Executive's agenda for its meeting on 4 April 2008.  Please bring this agenda with you to the meeting. 

The Committee received and considered report 182/07 of the Principal Performance Management Officer.

The Principal Performance Management Officer confirmed that the figures contained within the report related to 2006/07. Several Members expressed exasperation that more up to date figures were unavailable. The Principal Performance Management Officer advised that a new set of indicators were to be introduced, guidance having been released on 1 April 2008.  He confirmed that he was about to publish information about the new indicators on the Vale’s web pages. He agreed that he would include the information together with a brief item on the next Scrutiny Agenda.

To review the activity of the Executive and consider any references to this Committee.  Members are requested to bring with them to this meeting the agenda and draft minutes of the Executive meeting held on 4 April 2008.

None.

The Chair to move that in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public, including the press, be excluded from the remainder of the meeting to prevent the disclosure to them of exempt information, as defined in Section 100(I) and Part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, to the Act when the following items are considered:-

Minutes

Category 1 –Information

RESOLVED

that in accordance with Section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the public, including the press, be excluded from the remainder of the meeting to prevent the disclosure to them of exempt infomraion as definded in Section 100(I) and part 1 of Schedule 12A, as amended, to the Act when the following items are considered:

Minutes

Category 3 – Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (including the Authority holding that information) 

SUMMARY OF THE EXEMPT ITEMS CONSIDERED AT THE MEETING OF THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE HELD ON THURSDAY 17 APRIL 2008.

To adopt and sign the Exempt Minutes of the meeting of Scrutiny Committee held on 14 February 2008 (attached)

 The exempt Minutes of the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee held on 14 February 2008 were adopted and signed as a correct record.