Agenda item

Miss Carey (Cabinet Member for Customers, Communications and Performance), Ben Watts (General Counsel), David Whittle (Director of Strategy, Policy, Relationships and Corporate Assurance), and Mark Scrivener (Corporate Risk Manager) were present for this item.

1.            Ben Watts introduced this item; the risk was made up of two elements; likelihood and impact score.  This risk had a score of 5 for impact and likelihood score of 2.  The risk had an overall score of 10 but was still marked as ‘unlikely’ at the current time.  The risk related to Member Governance and the important role of all Members of the Council, it was a whole system risk.  It was vital that Member risk was identified and scrutinised.  Mr Watts was supportive of this risk and was supportive of Kent being an authority where the risk appeared on the register and could be discussed.  Mr Watts referred to Article 2 of the constitution and the key role of members in Kent in relation to governance framework. 

2.            A Member questioned the likelihood and impact, and in addition the Member queried whether the risk should address the actions or inactions of officers in relation to officers not being responsible to a Member.  Mr Watts explained that the impact of the risk was high, and likelihood was low resulting in the medium risk.  Within the constitution there was the provision for chief officers to seek written direction from Executive Members, changes had also been made around delegations to officers.

3.            David Whittle explained to Members that the risk had been put into the corporate risk register following discussions had at the Autumn Refresh around the issues at Northamptonshire and, following the Max Caller report, the need for strong governance.  It was felt appropriate to put this risk in; the team would always listen to feedback and in relation to the balance between member and officer responsibility this would be taken on board, however it was referenced within the cause of the risk section.  Mr Whittle would consider whether this needed to be strengthened with officers outside of the meeting.  Mr Scrivener explained that the impact was a 5 out of 5 score, the consequences were high and combined with the likelihood it became a medium risk. 

4.            A Member commented that there were instances where Members did not have sufficient knowledge of the background in making decisions.  It was considered that the wording needed to be tightened to ensure that this was clear. 

5.            A Member stated that she considered that KCC was an authority led by a small group of Members.  It was important that the authority had a constitution which reflected all kinds of potential proportionality.  She requested reference within the document of the understanding that the decision making group reflected all parties that were in the controlling group.  In relation to the ability of officers to seek written authority from Executive Members the Member asked how often this had been used?  Mr Watts confirmed that no officer had yet to ask for a written direction.  The Member also referred to existing committees and sub-committees which were a single party constitution, the Member had asked for advice of where the authority for these groups came.    

6.            The Member also commented on the timing of the budget publication and group briefings and asked that consideration be given to timings of these issues in the future. 

7.            Miss Carey explained that it was important to remember that these were risks that could happen, not that this was the current situation.  Both formal and informal meetings regarding the budget took place, it was for Members to ask the right questions and the purpose of the risk was to try to avoid making future mistakes.  Mr Watts explained that the S151 Officer was looking at new ways of carrying out finance briefings around the budget and an all Member briefing was also being held in advance of the approval of the budget. 

8.            Referring to the written direction from Executive Members to Officers this was intended to ensure that the organisation acted in the right way and that the proper advice was given and provided.  There was also a requirement to report to Governance and Audit Committee any request under this provision, this ensured that all Members were aware when this was used.  Mr Watts confirmed that he would be providing the advice which would be circulated to all Members of the Scrutiny Committee around the informal and formal governance of the council. 

9.            Members discussed the availability of information and one member commented that he had previously had to submit a Freedom of Information request to the authority to gain access to information requested.  Ben Watts explained that in relation to exempt items it was considered that the exempt provisions were being used appropriately, reports were split as much as possible to ensure that there was as much as possible in open reports.  A re-write of the constitution was currently underway, and this would be brought to the May County Council. 

RESOLVED that the Scrutiny Committee thank the Officers for attending the meeting and answering Members’ questions.  The Scrutiny Committee noted the report. 

At the conclusion of the meeting the Chairman asked Members of the Scrutiny Committee whether they would support a future item on the Committee agenda to look at Member’s IT, this was supported by the majority of the Committee.