Agenda and minutes

(1) Regarding Item 4 paragraph 4 on the Kent Digital Service, Mr Gough clarified that a cross-party group would be set up to be led by Tanya Oliver, not Jane Clarke.

(2) RESOLVED: that subject to the amendment of Item 4 paragraph 4, the minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2010 are correctly recorded and that they be signed by the Chairman.

(1)   The Chairman explained that all Members had received hard copies of a letter from Mr Burr and a map depicting the routes for gulley emptying but that the Committee was still awaiting the gulley emptying schedules, which would begin to be supplied to Members within four weeks.

(2) On the Kent Design Guide, it was noted that the Chairman and Vice Chairmen were due to meet with Mike Austerberry shortly to discuss the content of the notes that went to the Environment, Highways and Waste Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee following the Seminar.

(3) In relation to the redeployment of Community Wardens, it had now been clarified that local Members would be consulted about redeployment decisions before they were made. Discussions were ongoing, however, with regard to that status of these decisions, i.e. Key or Non-Key.

(4) RESOLVED: that Members note the follow up items report and the responses to previous recommendations

(1) Members were advised that the Informal Member Group on Budgetary Issues held on 10 September had been cancelled, and that the next meeting was scheduled to take place on 8 October.

Provisional item depending on the discussion at the Cabinet meeting.

Mr Paul Carter, Leader of the Council and Ms Katherine Kerswell, Group Managing Director have been invited to attend the meeting between 2.45pm and 3.15pm to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

Mr R Gough, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services and Performance Management, Ms K Kerswell, Group Managing Director and Ms D Exall, Head Of Strategic Policy, were present for this item.

(1) The Chairman reminded Members of the Committee that a decision to call in a particular item could be made to celebrate good progress, not just when something might have gone wrong. She added that page 22 of the report mentioned that local media would be very interested and possibly very critical, and so this is why she had decided to invite Paul Francis, of the Kent Messenger Group to this meeting as a witness.

(2) In response to concerns that invited witnesses from the media could appear at all public meetings and ask questions of witnesses and Members, Mr Sass clarified that the Constitution does allow the Committee to invite witnesses, but suggested that he and the Chairman and Committee Spokespersons meet to discuss a protocol for witnesses. Mr Christie and Mr Manning acknowledged the need for a protocol.

(3) Ms Kerswell introduced the report as part of a ‘journey’, and emphasised the Programme was a learning process for the organisation; a cultural as well as a technical challenge. Ms Kerswell expressed a desire to be ahead of the Government and the recommendations in the report would ensure this. The programme will begin with the Environment, Highways and Waste Directorate and will form part of the learning process.

(4) Early conversations with Cabinet Members had shown there is strong support in taking the next step. There was acknowledgement that the data would need to be put into context to help the public understand what the Council does with their money and to help them be more aware and informed citizens.

(5) The report was welcomed but some risks were underlined: If the Council does not deliver information promptly it may face criticism that it is hiding something; the number of transactions that would be questioned through Freedom of Information (FOI) requests was difficult to predict; and what were the workload implications for staff?

(6) The fact there would be risks was acknowledged, such as the danger of publishing personal information, or losing the confidence of the public, but it was felt that the media could help the Council and public understand the cultural change that would be required. There was also an acknowledgement that it would be important to get things right first time so extra staff were not required to correct mistakes; all transactions would need to go through Oracle so they could be tracked. There was no evidence of an increase in FOI requests in other councils which had already delivered similar programmes, and publishing information may actually avoid having to constantly respond to requests; Mr Francis suggested that this would be a channel for the media and public to clarify data, but that if the data was already accessible the Council would be able to signpost people to it instead.

(7) In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Provisional item depending on the discussion at the Cabinet meeting.

Mr Roger Gough, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services and Performance Management and Ms Katherine Kerswell, Group Managing Director have been invited to attend the meeting between 3.15pm and 3.45pm to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

Mr R Gough, Cabinet Member for Corporate Support Services and Performance Management, Ms K Kerswell, Group Managing Director, Mrs S Garton, County Performance And Evaluation Manager, Mr R Fitzgerald, Performance Monitoring Officer, Mr N Chard, Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste, Mr J Burr, Director of Kent Highway Services, Ms C Mckenzie, Greener Kent Manager, Mrs J Whittle, Deputy Cabinet Member For Children, Families & Education and Ms R Turner, Managing Director Children, Families & Education were present for this item.

(1) It was confirmed that each of the elements of the report was scheduled to go the relevant Policy Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and this would be the practice henceforth.

(2) A Member made the point that although the Red Amber Green (RAG) system was useful, the standard by which each rating was determined could change over time and made historical and contextual comparison difficult. It was pointed out that if a position was restated it was possible to restate the historical position and there were also objective criteria that could be used comparative purposes. Furthermore it was emphasised that although the RAG system gave a good starting point, the Group Managing Director’s report, each individual Managing Director’s report and the running commentary on each of the figures were also important context, particularly as there may have been progress made in one particular area or it may be representative of the national position.

(3) The Chairman recommended the Fire Authority report as a good model, since it has been established for a number of years and provided good comparator data from other Authorities along with contextual information. Mrs Garton pointed out that the covering report did contain areas that would be looked at in the future which included comparator groups as well as making graphs easier to read. In response to a query about the accuracy of the data provided, Mrs Garton responded that the section on Data Quality in the covering report contained detail around this point, as well as the source of national data.

(4) The report represented an overview pulled together by the Chief Executive’s Department (CED), but the data came from the Directorates and the individual commentaries were signed off by Senior Management Teams (SMTs) in each Directorate, although it did also refer to national data. Members expressed a desire to be able to scrutinise the report at POSCs in the future, and asked that if this was the case, it was ensured the timing of publication facilitated this.

CO2 emissions from KCC estate

(5) It was explained that 70% of energy use took place in the school estate, and that schools energy usage had increased by 50%, particularly due to the increased use of ICT. However, across the whole KCC estate, CO2 emissions had fallen by 4% over the last 6 years. Furthermore there had been an increase in the physical estate with more air conditioning being used, higher specification lighting and a growth in ICT use in schools, and longer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.

Provisional item depending on the discussion at the Cabinet meeting.

Mrs Jenny Whittle, Deputy Cabinet Member For Children, Families & Education and Mrs Rosalind Turner, Managing Director Children, Families & Education have been invited to attend the meeting between 3.45pm and 4.15pm to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

Mrs J Whittle, Deputy Cabinet Member for Children, Families and Education, Ms R Turner, Managing Director, Children, Families and Education and Mr C Feltham, Head of Additional Educational Needs & Resources were present for this item.

(1) The report considered lead school implementation and the evaluation of a new Special Education Needs (SEN) strategy informed by the lead school and SEN reviews. It proposed that the lead school programme not be taken forward past September and the pilot be terminated in March 2011, when the funding expired, and sought agreement to the SEN strategy, which included the development of new funding arrangements and a new communication strategy for parents. There was an SEN steering group and sub-groups, supported by mainstream and SEN headteachers, officers across the Council and colleagues in Health to take this forward, and meetings were currently taking place.

(2) The pilot met with challenges, including the shortage of occupational and speech and language therapists to make mainstream schools more inclusive. Over £1m had been invested in outreach centres to support mainstream schools with SEN children and there was further capacity to develop these. On the termination of the pilot, there was unanimous support for this decision given the evidence that had been collected during the process.

(3) In response to questions about how headteachers of lead and other schools would be involved in the consultation process, it was stated that the SEN steering group and sub-groups had headteacher representatives from the full range of schools, and they also had responsibility for representing the other headteachers not on the group.

(4) It was questioned whether the level of questionnaire responses (101 out of 1651 parents and carers contacted) was acceptable and what other efforts were made to engage. The response to this was that several meetings were held in each area, the voluntary sector were enlisted to help engage with people and Partnership with Parents were also involved in organising meetings.

(5) Questions were raised around budget implications, specifically: whether these would be made clear to consultees, the response being that they would be taken to the devolved formula funding group and relayed to the SEN steering group; and whether the pilot had failed due to insufficient funding, the response to which underlined that there had been an increase in funding over the last 5 years for SEN children, while the amount of children with statements in mainstream schools had fallen, and that there had been a 39% increase in funding for special schools while the number of children attending these schools had increased by 17% in the same period.

(6) In response to a query as to whether there would be an increase in special school placements including for those with behavioural difficulties due to increasing demand, it was suggested that the number of SEN children who had their needs met by special schools may increase, but this might also include children in mainstream schools who were supported by special schools.

(7) The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69.

Provisional item depending on the discussion at the Cabinet meeting.

Mr Mike Hill, Cabinet Member For Communities and Mrs Amanda Honey, Managing Director Communities have been invited to attend the meeting between 4.15pm and 4.45pm to answer Members’ questions on this item. 

The Committee noted that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.