MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL

 

Strategic Leadership and Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee

 

Tuesday 6 MAY 2014

 

REPORT OF MKS DIRECTOR

 

Report prepared by Paul Taylor

MKS Director

 

 

remit of mks director

 

1            Issue for Consideration

 

1.1        This report is for information only; it sets out the objectives of the MKS Director over the 12 month period of the secondment.

 

2            Recommendation of MKIP Management Board

 

2.1        As set out in the MKIP Programme Managers report to this committee on the 15^th of April 2014 the MKIP work streams as identified by the Board for the next twelve months fall broadly into two categories:

(i)       trial and assessment of the Mid Kent Services “single lead provider director” operational model; and

(ii)      assessment and resolution of practical issues that have arisen through working in partnership.  These issues have been identified as:

·                improving and coordinating performance monitoring and reporting requirements from each shared service to the MKIP Management Board;

·                improving and sharing good practice amongst the Shared Service Boards, which includes developing shared service plans, collaboration agreements and service level agreements for each shared service;

·                consolidating shared service budgets;

·                removing duplication and streamlining decision-making processes (corporately and politically); and

·                developing a comprehensive communication and engagement strategy for staff, members, stakeholder organisations (e.g. KCC) and where relevant, members of the public.

 

2.2     The governance arrangements are not currently being examined by the Programme, and this report does not seek to review this area of Partnership work.

 

          The MKS Director has been tasked with working alongside the Programme Manager in order to deliver the key objectives set out in the work streams above. More specifically the role of the Director is described in the job description attached at appendix A.

 

         Recommendation

 

2.3    This report is for information only.

 

3            Reasons for Recommendation

 

3.1    To ensure that members remain up-to-date and engaged with the Mid Kent Improvement Partnership programme, and to provide an opportunity for involvement in the work streams and remit of the Director for the year ahead.

 

4            Background

 

4.1        The background of the Mid Kent Improvement Partnership was set out in the Programme Managers report of 15^th of April 2014; however this provides the committee with further clarification of the MKS Directors role.

         

4.2        At their meeting on 5 March 2013, the MKIP Management Board approved to trial a ‘single lead provider director’ model of operation, which would seek to put in place a director to line manage a range of current and future Mid Kent services, act as a single point of contact for shared service issues, and be accountable for provision to ensure they meet the objectives and levels of service individually agreed at each authority.  At the end of March I was appointed into the position on a secondment basis.

 

4.3        As well as implementing a number of operational improvements and efficiencies my main responsibilities will be to develop a vision, culture and sense of identity for Mid Kent Services, and to propose ideas for future efficiencies or trading of services. A diagram to demonstrate how and where lines of responsibility and relationships work in the trial model is available at appendix B. This is not intended to demonstrate every relationship that will be required in the new structure, and it is important to note that some Shared Service Managers will continue to have accountability to other managers (such as the Revenues and Benefits Shared Service Manager, who will continue to have a formal accountability to the S151 officers at each Council). MKS currently include Revenues and Benefits, ICT, HR, Audit and Legal services. A number of other partnerships are currently being implemented and these services will be considered for inclusion in MKS once they are fully operational.

 

4.4        The trial will last for 12 months from April 2014 to March 2015, and at the end of this time, the period will be independently assessed to establish whether the objectives for the trial have been met.  This assessment and recommendations for the next steps will be sent to the MKIP Management Board for consideration and approval.

         

4.5        The lists of practical issues to be resolved have previously been reported by the MKIP Programme Manager however these are listed again below:

 

• Aligning Performance Monitoring Reporting

 

• Developing Shared service plans, Collaboration Agreements and Service Level Agreements

 

• Consolidating Shared Service Budgets

 

• Streamlining and simplifying decision-making processes

 

• Developing a Communications and Engagement Strategy

 

• Developing a Forward Plan for the possible development of the partnership

 

5                      Alternative Action and why not Recommended

 

5.1     The above work streams have been identified as key issues to resolve.        Resolution will ensure that partnership work between Maidstone Borough        Council, Swale Borough Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council remains       effective and continues to deliver high quality, efficient services that are able to innovate and adapt to a complex operational environment.

 

5.2        The programme could choose to remain static, but this would jeopardise the effectiveness of partnership work between the three councils, and leave the identified efficiency issues unaddressed.

 

6         Impact on Corporate Objectives

 

6.1        Working in partnership with other public service providers is one of the ways that Maidstone Borough Council has chosen to ensure its services are delivered efficiently, and with a strong focus on excellence.

 

7.           Other Implications

 

1.      Financial	X
2.      Staffing	X
3.           Legal	X
4.            Equality Impact Needs Assessment
5.            Environmental/Sustainable Development
6.            Community Safety
7.            Human Rights Act
8.            Procurement
9.            Asset Management

 

7.1              The trial of the operational model will be met within existing resources and will have no cost impact on the three partnership authorities.

 

7.2              Line management and clienting arrangements will need to change during the trial period to accommodate this change in post. The proposals have been discussed with staff directly affected by the potential changes.   

 

7.3              As the Mid Kent Services Director I will need financial and legal delegations jointly from all three councils if there are to operate effectively in a partnership setting. This will be initiated once the appointment is made and the host employer can be determined.

 

8                 Relevant Documents

 

8.1              Appendices

 

                   Appendix A – MKS Director Job Description

          Appendix B – Diagram to demonstrate how and where lines of responsibility and relationships work in the trial model

 

8.2              Background Documents

 

 

Draft Options Report for Mid Kent Improvement Partnership – Trowers and Hamlins LLP, June 2013

 

Limited Scope Report, Review of the Proposal Options Business Case for Shared Services for Mid Kent Improvement Partnership – Mazars LLP, November 2013

IS THIS A KEY DECISION REPORT?                  THIS BOX MUST BE COMPLETED   X     Yes                                               No     If yes, this is a Key Decision because: ……………………………………………………………..   …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….     Wards/Parishes affected: …………………………………………………………………………………..   ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..