Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be web-cast.

Apologies were received from Councillor Marshall.

There were no substitute Members.

There were no visiting Members.

a)  Disclosures of interest.

b)  Disclosures of lobbying.

c)  Disclosures of whipping.

There were no disclosures.

Resolved:  That all items on the agenda be taken in public as proposed.

Resolved:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 January 2010 be agreed as a correct record and duly signed by the Chairman.

Interview with:

·  David Tibbit, Property and Procurement Manager; and

·  Steve Trigg, Procurement Manager.

The Procurement Manager, Steve Trigg, introduced the draft Procurement Strategy 2010-2013 to the Committee.  Mr Trigg explained that the previous Procurement Strategy had focussed on embedding good procurement practices and supporting the Council’s aims. The new strategy had built on this and looked to respond to the social and economic context in which the Council was working.  The four key elements of the strategy were sustainability, supporting small and medium enterprises and local businesses, ensuring equality of opportunity, and partnership working, particularly through the Mid-Kent Improvement Partnership.  The Council aimed to spend more of its money in the local area and procurement could influence this through, for example, providing guidance to council officers who procured lower value items.

A Councillor asked how more support would be given to local small businesses.  Mr Trigg informed Members that the Council’s contract procedure rules raised the threshold for competitive tendering from £25,000 to £75,000.  This gave officers greater scope to spend up to that threshold in the local area for services and goods.  It was noted, however, that it unclear how long this threshold could be maintained as laws could be introduced forcing it to be reduced.  Procurement could also work with client departments to influence specifications for larger contracts to encourage the main contractor to use local businesses as sub-contractors.  Tender documents had been simplified to make them clearer for small businesses.  Local businesses were encouraged to use the South East Centre of Excellence Business Portal to access forthcoming tendering opportunities.  The Procurement Department generally used electronic means to communicate with suppliers, however this was not always accessible to some small businesses and therefore a balance of communication methods was maintained.  Mr Trigg emphasised that it was important not to raise expectations as the Council could not give work to everyone; the main issue was to ensure the Council’s procurement processes were clear and opportunities were well advertised.

With regard to the amendment to the contract procedure rules, a Councillor asked when the impact of this would be reviewed.  Mr Trigg stated that Corporate Management Team required a review of this when it had been in place for one year, therefore a review of the financial records would take place in June 2010 to identify any trends.  There was a Key Performance Indicator that looked at the Council’s spend in the Maidstone postcode area and this would be used to analyse the impact of the change. 

In response to a question, Mr Trigg explained that when the contract procedure rules had been amended, Heads of Service had been asked to send relevant officers to training sessions on this and detailed guidance notes had been provided.  Training for new officers with procurement responsibilities was not well-embedded in the induction process and was the responsibility of line managers and Heads of Service.  The Committee agreed that ensuring new officers with procurement responsibilities were adequately trained in the Council’s procurement processes was vital and recommended that this be included in the induction process for relevant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Interview with David Tibbit, Property and Procurement Manager.

The Property and Procurement Manager, David Tibbit, informed Members that the first Asset Management Plan had been produced 8 years ago and had taken the format prescribed by the Government Office for the South East, which meant that the plan was very inward looking and focussed only on the management of assets in isolation from the community.  The new Asset Management Plan, which was the Council’s fourth, was more useful, identifying what the Council had done, what its plans for its assets were and why.  It looked at how assets could support regeneration and bring other benefits to the community.  Clear objectives for operational and non-operational assets were included within the plan.  A number of major projects had been delivered successfully by the Council recently, including the new offices, the Gateway, the Crematorium, the Leisure Centre and the depot, and several more were in progress, including the Museum East Wing extension, Mote Park improvements and the High Street Regeneration project.  The plan outlined how existing assets would be improved and also how assets could be transferred to communities.  In addition, work was taking place as part of the Total Place initiative to establish common descriptions for properties and their performance across Kent; this would help to identify what was a good and bad property and to find opportunities for sharing assets between local authorities.

A Councillor highlighted that gypsy sites received little mention in the plan and Mr Tibbit agreed to include information on future plans for the sites.

In response to a question, Mr Tibbit stated that the Council managed several residences in the town that belonged to Kent County Council (KCC) because there had previously been a shortfall in tenanted accommodation.  However, as KCC was unable to fund improvements needed to achieve Decent Homes Standard they were being transferred back to KCC.

With regard to the new offices, Mr Tibbit informed Members that the Council was in the last stages of negotiation with the landlord regarding compensation for the late delivery of the offices.  Members requested more information on this in writing as the information could not be disclosed in a public meeting by virtue of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 – Paragraph 3 (information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person, including the authority holding that information).  With regard to the rent for the offices, Mr Tibbit confirmed that there was a fixed rent increase every 5 years.  The Committee agreed to write to the Director of Change and Environmental Services emphasising the need for the compensation negotiations to be completed within 3 months.

A Councillor asked about the cost of the disposal of the old office buildings.  Mr Tibbit responded that tenders had been received for the demolition of both of the Tonbridge Road buildings, and the cost of demolition, plus additional investigations, was within budget.

In response to a question, Mr Tibbit confirmed that the objectives in the plan would be updated to correspond with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

Interview with Councillor Richard Ash, Cabinet Member for Corporate Services.

The Cabinet Member for Corporate Services, Councillor Richard Ash, informed the Committee that as part of his “Enhancing Local Democracy” priority, he had written to twelve secondary schools in the Borough to try and discuss two key issues with pupils aged 15 and over; firstly, to promote the Council as a major employer, and secondly, to discuss the political organisation of the Council.  Only two responses had been received, however the Cabinet Member and the Democratic Services Manager had met with representatives of these two schools to identify ways in which the Council could contribute to the Citizenship curriculum.  It was considered extremely important to engage young people in the democratic process as this would hopefully encourage them to vote and take part in local democracy in the future.

A Councillor felt that building a rapport with two schools could lead to more interest from other schools, therefore the work to date was very positive.  It was recommended that work also be undertaken to engage the ethnic minority communities in the Borough, as the Diverse Communities Report produced by the External Overview and Scrutiny Committee in 2008-09 had indicated a broad range of minority groups in the Borough.  It was also important to engage with ethnic minorities as the make-up of the elected membership currently did not reflect all of Maidstone’s communities.

A Member asked whether work had taken place with Kent County Council (KCC) on enhancing local democracy, as KCC was the education authority.  Councillor Ash stated that this had not happened to date but agreed it could be worthwhile.  Another Member also recommended investigating best practice to see what lessons could be learnt.

Resolved:  That the Cabinet Member for Corporate Services be recommended to:

a)  Engage with ethnic minority community groups as part of his Enhancing Local Democracy priority;

b)  Investigate working with Kent County Council to engage with schools; and

c)  Identify best practice in enhancing local democracy.

The Committee considered the Quarter Three Performance Monitoring Report and requested written reports on the reasons for the following indicators not meeting their targets, and what action was being taken to address this:

PI 21:  “Percentage of those making complaints satisfied with the handling of the complaint”.

PI 23:  “Value of bids made through the Invest to Save scheme”.

Resolved:  That written reports be requested on the reasons for indicators PI 21 and PI 23 not meeting their targets and what action was being taken to address this.

The Committee considered the updates from the Citizens Advice Bureau and the Head of Revenues, Benefits and Community Safety on benefits uptake in the Borough and agreed to note the information.

Resolved:  That the update on Benefits Uptake in the Borough be noted.

The Committee considered a reference from the Audit Committee with regard to Devolved Budgets.  Councillors agreed that the reference did not adequately address their concerns about the audit trail for devolved budgets after they had been spent, and consequently agreed to make a recommendation directly to the Internal Audit department that random checks be carried out on 6 devolved budget spends per year to ensure that they were being spent on the projects they were intended for.

Resolved:  That the Internal Audit department carry out checks on 6 devolved budget spends per year to ensure that they were being spent on those projects for which they were intended.

The Committee considered its Future Work Programme and the Forward Plan of Key Decisions.  A Councillor requested that, as part of the “Council Consultation” item at the 2 March 2010 meeting, consultation with Councillors be considered, as currently some information sessions were being referred to as consultation, and giving information was not the same as meaningful consultation.

Resolved:  That

a)  The Council Consultation item at the 2 March 2010 meeting include information on consultation with Councillors; and

b)  The Future Work Programme be noted.

6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.