APPENDIX 1

SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT WITH ACTION TAKEN TO DATE

1. Profile of Select Committees – Independent and Challenging

(a) SC clear that the role is to ‘influence’ not make decisions.

Minuting style changed to reflect actions being requested by Select Committee by Portfolio Holders and officers.

(b) SC more active role in responding and assisting in the implementation of corporate priorities.

Still being developed as part of the workplan process.

(c) More direct focus on innovation and improvement.

This is being achieved partially through the QPMR.

(d) Chairmanships to be based on merit, selected by each committee – linked to the role profiles and skills criteria.

To be reviewed by the Council following the May 2005 elections.

(e) Consider replacing the need for Chairman with Lead Panel Members e.g. Kirklees Council.

Following trialling with Lead members and Member Champions draft job descriptions are to be considered by the Co-ordinating Committee at its meeting on 2 March 2005.

2. Executive Responsiveness to Select Committees – Influencing the Work of the Executive

(a) Each SC to produce a quarterly report to the executive on key outputs.

Report submitted to Executive with the QPMR.

(b) Executive to be more forward and proactive in seeking support from the SC to assist in areas for in depth policy review, investigation or for further policy development.

Portfolio Holders are aware and system is being developed.

(c) Executive to view the SC as forums for innovation, new ideas and assisting in shaping the corporate planning process.

Still to be developed.

(d) Forward Plan to be given a higher profile by the SC. This will create a critical friend relationship with the executive and reduce executive overload through the effective use of pre-decision scrutiny.

The Forward Plan appears as the first main item on every Select Committee agenda thereby giving the opportunity for advance notification of key issues coming before the Executive and also any proposed delegated decisions due to be taken.

(e) Formal (monthly) meetings between Portfolio Holder and SC Chairman/Vice Chairman to examine key issues, collaboration and key improvement themes and identify issues arising from the Forward Plan.

Mechanism not yet in place.

3. Measuring Outputs and Outcomes

(a) Annual Select Committee Report – to be presented to Council as a powerpoint presentation and then used as a platform for further discussion and enhance the profile of the SC.

The Full Council is due to receive the 2^nd Annual Report at its 13 April 2005 meeting.

(b) Develop a criteria for measuring the impact and effectiveness of the SCs. This could include how the SCs have led to more effective and transparent decision making, increased partner and stakeholder engagement.

The information compiled for the QPMR is being developed for this.

(c) At the end of a SC review an ‘impact assessment’ to be carried out to identify potential improvements and added value to the service or the community impact as a consequence of the review.

Not yet developed.

(d) SC outputs to be formally reported back to the Executive and Portfolio Holder by the SC Chair to ensure that they are considered and taken forward.

As part of the QPMR mechanism but reported to the Executive by the Deputy Leader.

(e) An audit trail to be put in place to measure and evaluate how SC recommendations are taken forward, implemented and evaluated.

Being developed as part of the QPMR mechanism.

4. Work Programme

(a) Each SC to identify no more than 3-4 areas for review, development or investigation during the year. Items for review or new policy development linked to corporate objectives or areas identified as part of the improvement programme. This will also give more time on the Work Programme for high level debate and discussion about areas/subject to review.

When compiling the workplan members take into account the overall workloads and are reminded of those issues which require attention. The QPMR also highlights underperforming services which require further investigation. Generally agendas are being restricted in the number of items to be considered thereby enabling better in depth discussions on key issues.

(b) Lead Members to be identified (one or a paired approach) to take ownership of items. To lead the review from project planning, scoping, development of Task Groups, implementation and evaluation. The role and responsibility of Members should not end with the publication of a report.

Building on existing practice. The Benefits Best Value Review which involved Mrs E Oulton is an example where the lead member is still involved in monitoring service delivery. The job descriptions for lead members and member champions referred to earlier should assist in this.

(c) Ensure that the criteria developed for selecting items for the WP is consistently used and its effectiveness is evaluated. This will be a key role by the Chairman of the Co-ordinating Committee.

Criteria established and to be reaffirmed at any workplan meeting.

(d) All Members and Officers to be aware of the date when WP commences and officers to be notified on publication of Work Programme when an area in their service department is subject to review or scrutiny.

Directors Group now receives the workplan in conjunction with that for the Informal Executive, Executive and Full Council. Some Directorates Senior Management Teams also consider the workplans.

(e) Consider joint authority reviews to develop expertise and maximise the use of resources.

Still to be considered and developed and the attendance of officers, and members, will assist in this.

5. Meetings and Agendas

(a) Forward Plan to be given a higher priority on the SC Agendas – one of the first items rather than the last.

Now on all agendas as the first main item.

(b) Frequency of meetings of the SC to be reduced from monthly to two monthly. This will allow for the council to begin to move away from a “meetings based” culture to a scenario where more work of the SC is taken forward within the Task Groups. Less frequent meetings may also maximise attendance.

A number of informal briefing meetings have been held which has enabled members to have a more informed report and debate on the background to major issues. There has however been some criticism from the press as to ‘secret’ meetings.

(c) Greater use of Task Groups which meet away from County Hall.

A number of Task Groups are in operation and where necessary do meet at other locations. For example the Bereavement Services Task Group met at the Crematorium. County Hall is generally preferred by members as it is central, has full facilities and enables them to undertake a number of other duties. County Hall also conforms to the Disability Discrimination Act criteria.

(d) The Task Groups should have clear and sharp terms of reference and be time limited. Profile of Task Groups to be enhanced.

Specific terms of reference are used for Task Groups and more realistic timetables in which to complete these are being set. A specific Toolkit for Task Groups is being drafted and will be brought to the Co-ordinating Committee in due course.

(e) Develop the use of partners and stakeholders on the Task Groups. They should play a lead role or be permanent members not merely expert witnesses. Consideration to be given to using members of the “Peoples’ Panel” as members of the Task Groups. Example; Thurrock Council.

Not yet been fully investigated but where necessary stakeholders have been invited to assist Task Groups.

(f) SC reports to be more output/action focused – clear member ownership of the reports with Chairman or Lead Member signature on the reports, not officers.

Revised report format being developed. Lead Members or Chairman of Task Groups already have reports in their own name submitted to Select Committees.

(g) Greater focus on oral presentation to the SC rather than formal reports.

Difficulties encountered if an oral report is submitted on an item for scrutiny. Powerpoints are allowed to expand on basic information contained in a written report. Informal briefings however do enable oral presentations to be made.

(h) Consider reducing membership of the SC from 9 to 7. SC membership would be limited to each member being on no more than 1 or 2 committees - membership of SC should be a “privilege”.

Reduction in membership of Select Committees from 12 to 9 took place in April 2004. Any further change will be a matter for the new Council in May 2005.

(i) Elected Members with particular expertise or interest in a subject to be co-opted onto the Select Committee or the Task Group for the duration of the review.

A member can attend any Select Committee meeting, and with the Chairman’s permission speak. There is nothing to prevent any member not on the Select Committee or Task Group being invited to attend for a particular item.

6. Using Performance Information Effectively

(a) Performance information/quarterly reports should be provided to the SC with greater time to consider and make recommendations for improvement. Prior to the SC a senior service officer should break down the data and explain what the data means before the meeting of the SC. This will allow members time to respond to the performance information and be in a stronger position to make judgements and recommendations.

The framework for QPMR is evolving and the information being submitted distilled down to exceptions and issues that the Select Committee have expressed an interest in monitoring. Where necessary additional information is being added to give clarity. Chairmen are generally briefed on the QPMR prior to the meeting.

(b) SC need to improve the ability to use the performance information as a tool to assist in making recommendations for improvement.

This is slowly developing as a consequence of members having a better understanding of the information being presented.

7. Resourcing the Select Committee/Officer Role

(a) Officers should be called to SC on a selective basis and only if their presence will add real value. The Portfolio (Executive Member) Holder should take a more visible and lead role at the SC.

From the June 2004 round of meetings the responsibility for reporting on items to Select Committees was placed on Portfolio Holders. The Portfolio Holder therefore decides which officers are required to assist in presenting the report. If it is known in advance that a Select Committee wishes a particular officer to attend that officer is pre-warned and briefed on why the request has been made. Where possible an approximate time for attendance is given.

(b) The Select Committee Support Unit should agree a minimum notification period with officers when requiring reports, research or information. The work programme should clearly state when a department, team, officer will be required to support a review and the likely resource impact.

The workplan is sent to all appropriate officers as soon as it is prepared. The link being developed through the Directors Group and Senior Management Teams is an important step in the deadline process. Work is ongoing to establish a more robust process.

(c) Before Select Committee Support seeks information from an officer/department it should carry out an assessment of the added value the information/report will bring.

Information is sought on behalf of members, or a Select Committee, and the question is normally posed to the originator before being actioned.

(d) Officers should be given the opportunity or encouraged to provide oral updates rather than always having to produce reports. This may involve informal briefing meetings with the SC Chairman and officers from the SC Support Unit.

Efforts are being made to supply information outside the agenda framework. The possibility of incorporating updates in a Select Committee bulletin has been looked at but the resources currently available does not permit this being developed.

(e) There should be better co-ordination and improved dialogue between SC Support and the service heads. This should be a two way process commencing at the beginning of the work programme planning stage. Effective work programme planning should mean that officers from service departments are not having resources diverted at their most busy periods. However, Heads of Service/Service Departments should recognise the added value of the SCs in supporting their priorities.

Each Director, and Service Head, together with Portfolio Holders have an opportunity to attend the Workplan meeting held by each Select Committee and assist in developing a workplan that reflects key issues likely to arise. Through the early circulation it is hoped that any problems are identified at an early stage thereby enabling amendments to be made to the workplan.

8. Structure

(a) No recommendations to change the current structure. However, the changes to the Adult and Community Services and Children’s Services should lead to more effective and enhanced cross cutting outputs.

Any further change to the structure will be a matter for the new Council.

(b) The opportunity for more joint SC meetings where it can be seen to add value should be encouraged.

The Co-ordinating Committee has agreed a protocol for joint meetings. Any cross cutting issue would however normally be delegated to one Select Committee by the Co-ordinating Committee

(c) The current structure should allow Members to develop special expertise in particular areas. Chairmen should take a Mentor role to encourage Members to develop specific expertise.

This should be part of a member development programme.

(d) Remits of each SC should be reviewed on an annual basis as part of the ‘Development/Away Days’.

This is part of the existing process.