Agenda item

(1)       Mr Hardy introduced an early draft of KCC’s Self Assessment for the CPA Corporate Assessment.  He explained that there was a small cross-party group of Members who were being consulted on this draft in addition to getting the views of the Policy Overview Committees via this meeting.  Appended to the report was the Audit Commission’s Guidelines on how to produce a self assessment which set out the structure to be used.  Mr Hardy invited Members comments on the draft self assessment.

(2)       Mr Law stated that as a Member of the cross-party group of Members he had already submitted his written comments on this draft.

(3)       A Member made a general point there being limited reference within the document to acknowledging weaknesses and expressed the view that this imbalance should be addressed.  Mr Hardy explained that in relation to the issue of how the self assessment document should address the question of weaknesses.  The current draft self assessment contained descriptions and needed now to have judgements incorporated into the document.  Some of the better versions Self Assessment Documents came from Authorities who set out areas where they thought there was a need to improve.  

(4)       In response to a question on whether the Inspectors went into communities and talked to local residents.  Mr Hardy explained that the Inspectors were due to visit in January and they were intending to visit focus groups and to talk to partners, services users and third parties.  Officers were currently putting together an outline of their two week visit to submit to the lead Inspector.

(5)       The Leader stated that the report had come to this meeting in order to get input from Members and to make sure it reflected what the Authority was about.  He acknowledged that it was not a particularly exciting read at the moment, but it was a work in progress.  The Chief Executive highlighted that this document had to be written to a certain framework which was constraining.  The Leader emphasised that there was still a large amount of work to do to reflect the strength of the authorities and challenges and he hoped to ultimately get all party endorsement for the final version.  It was important to be honest about our areas of weakness as well as our massive strengths.  It was suggested that another meeting of this Committee be held in order to discuss the final draft of the Self Assessment.

(5)       Members made a number of comments which included:-

·                    General – the report uses the word “innovative” in a lot of places.  It is not necessarily helpful, to describe something as innovative. It is up to the Inspectors to decide what actually is innovative and we should assist them by giving examples

·                    Page 5.2 paragraph 1.2.4 – there is no mention of support for other language users or having a mini com service

·                    Page 5.21 – paragraph 1.2.7 – there is no mention of the target of having 5% of the top earners as women/disabled/ethnic origin, even a short sentence on this would be welcome

·                    Page 5.22 – paragraph 2.1.2 – this seems to assume that the Children, Families and Education Directorate deliver all educational services, this should also reflect their collaboration with schools and other partnership bodies.

·                    In relation to Kent’s Children’s Trust Board – could there be a mention of  how this demonstrates involvement at local level

·                    Page 5.23 – paragraph 2.1.5 – in relation to recycling, mention should be made of joint working with district councils

·                    Page 5.25 – second paragraph – the sentence which starts “Councillors provide clear leadership on linking service improvements with value for money, …” this sentence is need to be clarified.

·                    Page 5.26 – paragraph 2.3.3 second paragraph – there is no explanation of who comprises the residents panel and how the panel is selected.

·                    Page 5.27 – paragraph 2.4.1 – Work Force Strategy Board – it should be made clear whether this is a Board that covers all of the Council’s services –

·                    Page 5:34 - Paragraph 3.1.5 (i) – there is no mention of Connexions in this paragraph

·                    Page 5.35 – paragraph 3.1.5(iv) – the paragraph on Kent Works needs strengthening

·                    Page 5.36 – paragraph 3.2.4 – this paragraph could be enlarged as Housing is not the only partnership issues with District Councils.

·                    Page 5.45 – paragraph 3.5.8 – the last sentence needs rewording

·                    Page 5.26 – paragraph 2.3.3 – penultimate paragraph – in relation to the Member-led Local Boards, care how the way that Local Boards engage with their local community and enhance the Localism agenda is worded as not all  Members would agree with the way that this is currently expressed.

·                    Page 5.23 – paragraph 2.1.4 – the three core principles could be improved by using the core principles which are being submitted to the Communities Policy Overview Committee on 7 November 2007

·                    Page 5.16 – Overview and Scrutiny – this paragraph talks about what Overview and Scrutiny can do collectively, it does not reflect KCC’s system of having Cabinet Scrutiny which has its limits, for example it cannot establish Select Committees and having Policy Overview Committees which do not examine decisions that have been taken by Cabinet.  What seems to be set out in the document is what is in the Local Government Act 2000 and does not reflect the structure in Kent

·                    Page 5.26 – paragraph 2.3.3 – last paragraph – it is stated that residents would soon be able to e-mail and text their views during councils meetings – this needs to be checked to confirm that this was correct

·                    Page 5.17 – paragraph 1.1.1 – it states that Towards 2010 contains a series of 63 individual commitments, maybe this should be amended to read 63 aspirations and individual commitments

·                    Page 5.31 – paragraph 5.5.4 – there is no mention of the Brussels Office within the section on International Links, this section needs to be expanded

·                    Page 5.47 – paragraph 5.67 – the reference to free health-checks should include Chlamydia and this should not just be for young people but also for the 40+ age ground who were often entering second relationships

 (4)      RESOLVED that:-

            (a)       the comments made on the CPA Corporate Assessment – Draft Self Assessment be noted; and

            (b)       that a meeting of this Committee be convened to consider the final draft of the Self Assessment.