MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE RESOURCES SELECT COMMITTEE HELD AT COUNTY HALL, NEWPORT, ISLE OF WIGHT ON THURSDAY, 28 AUGUST 2003 COMMENCING AT 9.30 AM
Present :
Mrs M J Lloyd, (Chairman), Mr J R Adams (deputising for Mr G P Price), Mrs B D Clough (deputising for Mrs B Lawson), Mr M J Cunningham, Mr P D Joyce, Mrs M J Miller, Mr V J Morey, Mr R C Richards (deputising for Mr J F Howe), Mr I R Stephens, Mr R A Sutton, Mr D T Yates
Apologies :
Mr J F Howe, Mrs B Lawson, Mr G P Price
Portfolio Holder :
Mr R R Barry
Also Present (Non Voting) :
Mr A C Bartlett, Mr C R Hancock, Mr P G Harris, Mr H Rees, Mrs S A Smart, Mr D G Williams
38. MINUTES
RESOLVED :
THAT the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 August 2003 be confirmed.
39. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Mrs M J Miller declared a personal interest in Minute 40, as a member of the Project Board for Document Imaging.
40. CALL-IN OF THE EXECUTIVE - MINUTE 44 - DOCUMENT IMAGING/ELECTRONIC DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT
Mr R A Sutton, on behalf of the Members signing the Call-In, outlined the background to the four reasons for taking the action. He stated that the need for the Document Imaging/Electronic Document Management (DIP) system was supported but there were concerns as to the process involved in procuring the equipment and in particular in relation to :
• A clear audit trail to the Risk Register.
• Clarification on GAGS Programme Board in-house or partner solution.
• The taking of external advice with regard to the purchase of the equipment.
• The physical location of the equipment.
The Monitoring Officer advised the Select Committee on the application of the Select Committee Procedure Rules as they related to this case. Whilst he believed that the decision taken in respect of the Document Imaging/Electronic Document Management had been lawful and was within the budget and policy framework there were valid reasons for the Call-In. The Chief Financial Officer advised that the decision was within budget.
The Select Committee was made aware that a report had been submitted to the Executive, on 29 January 2003, which estimated the costs of implementing electronic government to be approximately £31 million over 10 years. The GAGS Programme Board had been given authority to commit expenditure only within the budget approved by the Council. If expenditure was outside that budget then it would be referred back to Full Council. Members sought clarification on the budget for the purchase of the equipment and were advised that it fell within the GAGS Programme Board budget.
Issues raised during the debate included :
• Was there a contravention of Contract Standing Orders?
• External advice taken before any expenditure taken.
• Creating capacity to get the job done efficiently.
• Was it compatible with the Corporate Database?
• Belief there was a need for a Strategic Partner.
• Significant proportion of GAGS budget was being made available for this.
• Where were the anticipated savings of £2m coming from?
• Clarification needed as to whether stand alone or part of GAGS.
• DIP contract needed element of flexibility.
• Confusion on how valid decision, no clear audit trail, want to see full accountability.
• Does decision comply with Best Value Review?
• Transparency of decision making process.
• Need to look at the way forward in connection with GAGS.
The Select Committee considered details of the DIP system and the process involved in its proposed procurement and implementation from the Portfolio Holder for Resources, the Chairman of the GAGS Programme Board, Chief Financial Officer, Head of Legal and Democratic Services, Strategic Director of Environment Services, Head of Planning Services and Head of Organisational Development.
The Head of Organisational Development advised the Select Committee that expert advice had been taken from the National Computing Centre (NCC) and the proposals were based on their recommendations. The equipment fell into several separate components, some of which would be located within County Hall and would be completely compatible with the Council’s current and future systems. It was believed that the scanning facility would be best placed at the Planning Offices at Seaclose in the first instance, but would eventually be centrally located. Members were advised that the recommendation had come from the ICT Programme Board rather than the GAGS Programme Board as it had a wider remit, although it was not a decision making body.
The Chief Financial Officer advised Members that Risk Management was embedded in the service planning process. Where procurement was concerned any high risk project was required to fulfill the Gateway process before implementation. The issue on project management was to be discussed at Directors Group in September 2003.
Members discussed what impact, if any, there would be if signing the contract was put on hold for another 2 weeks whilst the item was referred back to the Executive for further discussion. The Head of Organisational Development advised the Select Committee that a contract had been negotiated for both hardware and software with a built in delivery date. If DIP was held up the time frame negotiated with the suppliers for delivery and installation could be lost. When questioned as to how long it would take to re-negotiate the contract the Head of Legal and Democratic Services told Members it would depend on the basis for this. He assured the Select Committee that all relevant parts of the Council’s Constitution had been complied with in the Executive’s decision making process.
The Select Committee noted that the Executive would be considering a report on the decision making framework to steer the GAGS Project at its meeting on 24 September 2003. Members debated whether to draw concerns on the process involved in this issue to that meeting.
RESOLVED :
THAT the Select Committee believe that all processes had been adhered to and the recommendation from the Executive to purchase DIP forthwith, be endorsed.
CHAIRMAN