Agenda and minutes

TO RECEIVE apologies for absence

Apologies received from Councillor Paul Carter (Kent) and Councillor Sue Chandler (Dover) and Councillor Poole (Thanet).

TO RECEIVE declaration of interests

No declarations of interest were received.

The Chairman to report any notifications received prior to this meeting regarding the attendance of substitutes for the named Members of this Committee. 

There were no substitute members present at the meeting.

TO CONFIRM as a true record the minutes of the meeting of the committee held on 16 March 2011.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2011 were agreed as a correct record.

TO CONSIDER a report from the Head of Legal and Democratic Services (Canterbury) and the Solicitor to the Council (Dover)

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services (Canterbury) introduced the report.  He referred to the discussion at the East Kent (Joint Scrutiny) Committee (EKJSC) on 12 October 2011 on the performance monitoring arrangements for shared services.

He said the Chief Executive of Dover District Council had pointed out to the EKJSC that it would be helpful if a protocol were drawn up to divide responsibility between the scrutiny committee of each individual council and the East Kent committees. In the event the EKJSC debate had gone wider and amongst other things requested that ‘Red, Amber, Green’ style performance monitoring reports be submitted to the committee.  The full list of recommendations were summarised in the minutes appended to the report. 

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said it fell to the Solicitor to the Council of Dover and himself to respond to the request and produce a protocol that addressed the issues raised by the committee and the division of responsibility between each authority and EKJSC. 

He said the present arrangements had now been in place for over two years and perhaps a review might now be opportune.  It was suggested that for the time being the protocol be commended to EKJSC and the individual authorities with a rider that a review of the arrangements generally was now appropriate. 

A discussion followed during which the following points were made -

i)                    A Member said he had received legal confirmation that there was no requirement for a Joint Scrutiny Committee;

ii)       East Kent Housing should be removed from the monitoring arrangements as it was an arms length body with its own separate management arrangements;

iii)     The East Kent (Joint Arrangements) Committee (EKJAC) was the appropriate body to monitor EK Services and East Kent HR Partnership shared services.  

iv)     Each authority could scrutinise individual performance and there was no need for the two East Kent committees to duplicate responsibilities and hold what could be perceived to be unnecessary meetings. 

v)      It would be better if the whole arrangement was now reviewed. 

vi)     It was noted that EK Services had now been operating for nearly a year and it would be appropriate for EKJAC to receive an end of year performance report at the next meeting of the EKJAC in June.

vii)   It was understood that the EKJSC had been established to scrutinise performance and that EKJAC could refer matters to it to scrutinise if it so wished. 

viii)  A Member noted that in the minutes of the last meeting there had been a request for performance of data for the East Kent HR Partnership, which had never been received.  He said it might have saved a lot of problems if the request had been met and the data reviewed by this committee.

ix)     Without monitoring of performance there was a risk that issues may not be picked up until it was too late.

x)      A Member said he would be content to receive performance reports at EKJAC say, six monthly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

There was no other urgent business.

There being no other business the meeting closed at 10.28 am