That all items be web-cast.

Apologies were received from Councillors, Gooch, Wilson and Harwood.

Councillors Beerling and English substituted fro Councillors Wilson and Harwood respectively.

There were no Visiting Members.

There were no disclosures.

It was agreed that all items should be taken in public as proposed.

Members discussed the resolution made on page 5 of the Minutes:

‘That Councillor Pickett should investigate the Parking review and charges with Steve Goulette and report back to the Committee on his findings’. Some Members expressed concern that this was an area of exploration that could create duplication with another Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Members queried whether item 44, the Complaints Policy, made reference to the accessibility and equality issues discussed at the previous meeting and whether a recommendation should have been made.  The Minutes state: ‘The Committee questioned the complaints policy in terms of accessibility. The Officer informed Members that efforts had been made to make it as easy as possible to make a complaint to the Council; the policy outlined that complaints could be made by telephone or through an advocate and Stage 2 complaints no longer needed to be made in writing.’ The Officer had explained at the previous meeting that these issues had already been addressed in the policy.

It was resolved that:

a)  The minutes of the meeting held on 9 August be agreed as a correct record of the meeting and duly signed by the Chairman; and

b)  It be clarified with the appropriate Scrutiny Committee that the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee were not creating duplication by looking at the Parking review of charges.

Interview with Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager

The Chairman welcomed Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager to the meeting. The Chairman thanked Miss Kershaw for the recent training session on Policy and Performance which had been arranged to equip and prepare the Committee to deal with this area of their work.

The Officer explained that the Quarter 1 report was provided for information, subsequent reports would include Quarter 2 and Quarter 3 data which would allow a comparison and analysis to be made.  Miss Kershaw informed the Committee that many of the performance indicators were showing as being on course to achieve the targets set but more would be known at Quarter 2.  The Officer assured Members that if targets were not being met Managers would address those areas. 

Miss Kershaw made reference to paragraph 1.5.10 in the report which identified the impact of the current economic climate in relation to performance indicator LVE 002 (number of people claiming Job Seekers Allowance) exceeding the annual target. This illustrated the factors that needed to be given consideration when scrutinising the performance report. Miss Kershaw explained that the number of people, particularly females, claiming Job Seekers Allowance had risen compared to the same period last year.  The Economic Development Manager had noted that this was attributed to weakening retail and public sector employment which traditionally had a higher proportion of female workers.  The Officer explained that at present this indicator would slightly miss the annual target and advised Members that it could impact on other areas including benefits and housing. The Committee highlighted performance indicator DCV 003 and the target relating to residential planning applications, observing that as with the target relating to Job Seekers Allowance, this too was an area affected by the recession.

Miss Kershaw referred Members to Appendix A of the report, explaining that the reporting system used was Covalent and the status indicators for targets: red -  target missed, amber - within 10% of the target, green - hits target, unknown - new targets so nothing to measure against from the previous year and data only for contextual information. 

The Committee asked a series of questions regarding the performance figures for KPI R&B 077 and partnership working.  Members discussed the target set and whether a higher target could have been achieved if staff cuts had not taken place. Miss Kershaw explained that all service related enquires would need to be raised with the appropriate officer, advising that in this case that would be Steve McGuiness, Head of Revenues and Benefits. It was felt that this would be extremely beneficial, particularly as the income aspect of this investigation would feed into the Committee’s current review topic with its focus on income generation and efficiency savings.

The Committee asked Miss Kershaw to investigate whether there would be any benefit in aligning performance management with seasonal trends rather than the current quarterly reporting method.

Members also discussed the performance indicator explanations on page 23 of the agenda relating to the outcome, ‘By 2015 Maidstone has decent, affordable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Interview with Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager.

Miss Kershaw remained to discuss the next item on the agenda, the Quarter 1 Complaints report.  The Officer explained that complaints answered within the statutory timescale of 10 days were down on the previous year.  She informed the Committee that with regards to Housing issues where the department exceeded 10 days, contact was maintained with the customer.  In relation to the previous quarter, the Committee was informed that Housing were performing better and that they had appointed a dedicated complaints officer within the team. The Officer explained that services that affected everyone in the borough such as Council Tax and Waste and Recycling were expected to generate the highest numbers of complaints. 

Members raised questions surrounding the litter enforcement team who operate in the Town Centre issuing penalty fines to those caught dropping litter in the street. It was felt that their ‘combat style’ uniform was intimidating.  The Committee were updated on these issues by Miss Kershaw who informed them that new uniforms were being issued and the team would also be carrying cameras that would monitor the ways in which litter enforcement cases were dealt with.  Members were assured that any complaints received regarding the team were investigated and further training was provided where required. 

The Committee was informed that complaints customer surveys were now sent out monthly rather than quarterly to help improve and monitor the complaints process and feedback would be given to the team concerned.  Complaints could also be escalated to a Stage 2 complaint and these would be dealt with by Paul Fisher, Head of Corporate Law and Legal Services.  Miss Kershaw told the Committee that most of the recommendations made by the Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee with regards to the Complaint Policy had been implemented.  Work to improve the web pages, making them more accessible for customers was in progress.

Members were informed that as a result of customer feedback via the complaints process it had been established that the withdrawal of Council Tax payment slips had proved too hasty a decision for many customers.  The lesson learnt for the Council was to provide more public consultation for policy issues.

Miss Kershaw brought the ombudsman‘s report to the attention of the Committee, explaining that it had been considerably shorter this year than last year which was a positive reflection of the Council’s work in dealing with complaints as full reports were only sent to Council’s with a high level of complaints.

Council Tax and the outsourcing of letters, primarily the Single Person’s Discount review form was discussed. The Committee felt that overall this action had proved its financial viability to the council but had initially generated a large number of complaints due to the content of the letter and the manner in which residents were asked for information.  It was felt that it was extremely important that language used in letters was accessible to all residents. The Committee also discussed Benefits letters which they cited as particularly problematic.  They felt that they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Interview with Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager

The Committee welcomed Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager back for the next item on the agenda, the Corporate Improvement Plan Update.

The Officer explained that this was an update on the actions within the Corporate Improvement Plan that would be going to Cabinet and advised the Committee that any recommendation made would be added to the report.

Miss Kershaw informed the Committee that 14 of the actions in the plan had been completed since the last report, with five outstanding.  She explained that it was a living document that could be added to when relevant, such as following inspections.  Although there had been no inspections recently, Members were told that there were two Peer reviews planned in 2012, a Planning review and a corporate review and actions would be added to the plan as a result of these. The Committee were also informed that the Council had retained the Investors in People accreditation and there would be actions to follow as a result of this.  The Officer explained that Cabinet away days focused on priority setting around ‘Corporate and Customer Excellence’ and as a result also generated actions for the plan.

The Committee questioned CIP 019.01 ‘Hold focus groups to explore how people want to be engaged and develop a robust plan to deliver this’.  Members felt that this action lacked meaning and should be reworded to provide clarity.

Members discussed project management and it was felt there was a need for a Senior Officer in this role.  They discussed various project management roles that they were aware of with the authority, including a role at the Museum, the High Street regeneration project as well as highlighting past problems with Millennium Park. The Committee aired their concern over possible duplication in officer roles occurring. It was felt that the responsibility for project management role was vital given the level of financial investment.  They felt that that it was an in-house skill that was lacking and suggested that it would be a suitable topic for a Scrutiny review with a focus on offering best value in this area as a Council.

Members questioned the actions relating to Learning and Development and equality issues for staff.  It was felt that these were vitally important but wanted clarification on how the Learning and Development team ensured that all staff were completing these courses within the target dates set.  Miss Kershaw advised that Tina Edwards, Learning and Development Manager, would be able to advise on this area.

The Committee thanked the officer for attending the meeting.

It was resolved that:

a)  The following action: CIP 019.01 ‘hold focus groups to explore how people want to be engaged and develop a robust plan to deliver this’ should be reworded to form a more meaningful target and to clearly identify the purpose.  Ellie Kershaw, Policy and Performance Manager and the Scrutiny Officer should  formalise the Committee’s suggested rewording: ‘to explore methods in which to engage with the public for consultation purposes and develop a robust  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

The Committee addressed the Annual Report 2010-11 and discussed

the topics covered over the past year by Overview and Scrutiny Committees.  Members highlighted Domestic Abuse and the Partnership and Well-Being Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s work on Obesity which included a visit to Zeroth Active Centre, a provider of one of the ‘Weight for Life’ programmes, part of the Healthy Lifestyles Programme run by Maidstone Borough Council as part of a 2 year Service Agreement with the Primary Care Trust.  It was felt that the annual report could be broader and cover more of the year’s work including the many ‘one-off’ items looked at well as the larger review topics.  Members felt that the report would benefit from an index so the reader could quickly identify the Committee responsible for each topic.

The Committee concluded that they would note the report and made no recommendations to alter the report’s current state, resolving that their suggestions could be addressed at the upcoming Chairman’s meeting and considered for future reports. Members also highlighted to the Scrutiny Officer that due to the restructuring of the Scrutiny Committees there was not complete clarity amongst Members on the terms of reference for each Committee.  The Scrutiny Officer suggested that the terms of reference be revisited at the Chairman’s meeting to provide a refresh.

It was resolved that:

a)  The Annual Report 2011-11 be agreed to go to Council; and

b)  The upcoming Chairman’s meeting should be used as an opportunity to:

  i.  Discuss the Committee’s suggestions for improvements to the Overview and Scrutiny Annual Report to include a broader coverage of all scrutiny topics in future reports and the addition of an index to enable the reader to quickly establish which Committee had dealt with which item; and

  ii.  Discuss the terms of reference for each Scrutiny Committee.

The Committee evaluated the responses to their staff/Councillor survey for ‘The Council as a Business?’ review and the comments and ideas put forward by the public in response to a press release and a post on the Council’s social networking page on Facebook. The survey and press release had asked for ideas on income generation and ways in which the Council could become more efficient.

The Committee discussed the review topic and considered whether a focus of the review should be on developing a ’business like’ culture at the Council and establishing this as a corporate outlook.  It was felt that the review would benefit from external engagement with the local business community to help determine how the Council could become ‘business like’.

The Scrutiny Officer updated Members on her engagement with other authorities as part of the review. She explained that Kent County Council had been approached regarding the Committee’s interest in exploring commercial trading arms of the Council but they had declined the invitation.  She also informed Members that Braintree Council would be available to attend a later meeting to provide the alternative ‘executive’ view of a Medium Term Financial Strategy requested by Members.  With regards to exploring events management as a means of generating an income from the Council’s properties and parks and open spaces, the Committee was informed that Westminster City Council, Tower Hamlets Council and Lambeth Council had been contacted.

Members discussed the litter enforcement team, responsible for keeping the Town Centre litter free.  It was suggested that their services could be deployed to areas outside the Town Centre also. It was felt that this should be added to the scope of the review to investigate the cost effectiveness of expanding this service.  Members also suggested that it would be beneficial to look at strategies for maximising the new homes bonus and business rates.

Members felt that there was an overwhelming number of responses to the survey and press release and that it would take time to go through each idea and consider it fully.  It was felt that the Committee Members who had volunteered previously to design the survey and press release should meet with the Scrutiny Officer ahead of the next meeting to go through the suggestions.

It was resolved that:

a)  Councillors English, Paine and Pickett should meet with the Scrutiny Officer to consider all the suggestions put forward and identify which should be taken forward by the Committee; and

b)  The business community should be engaged with and sought as witnesses for a future meeting to explore a ‘business like’ culture for the Council.

The Committee was reminded that the Mela was due to take place on Sunday 11 September and as previously agreed Members would attend to conduct surveys with the public on ways in which the Council could generate an income and become more efficient in their delivery of services.  Councillors English, Paine and Pickett volunteered to attend.  Members were asked to consider their availability for future events at Morrisons, Lenham Farmers Market and the Switch cafe.

Members were informed that three volunteers had put themselves forward for the Budget Working Group; Councillors Gooch, Paine and Pickett. A meeting would be arranged with Paul Riley, Head of Finance and Customer Services, and the group would report back to the Committee.

The Committee considered the items on the forward plan and resolved that they would like to see the Community Halls Audit at their next meeting.

It was resolved that:

a)  Sarah Robson, Community Partnerships Manager should be invited to the next meeting to discuss the Community Halls Audit; and

b)  The Committee should provide the Scrutiny Officer with their weekday and weekend availability to enable her to organise further events to allow them to engage with the public on their review ‘The Council as a Business?’

6.30pm to 7.57pm