Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Leader of the Council
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: No
The report will include the business case and operating model for the proposed shared service and will outline the stages required to implement it. It will detail the arrangements for the TUPE of staff from the City to the Lead authority (HDC).
Matter for
Decision
Cambridge City Council
(CCC), Huntingdonshire District Council (HDC) and South Cambridgeshire District
Council (SCDC) had agreed to work in partnership to deliver shared services and
had agreed general principles to underpin the approach.
The report provided the
business case to establish an ICT Shared Service (ICTSS) between the Councils
and details the activity to create the ICTSS
Decision
of the Leader
Approved the Business Case and delegated authority to
the Director of Business Transformation to make decisions and to take steps
which are necessary, conducive or incidental to the establishment of ICTSS in
accordance with the business case.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Director of Business
Transformation regarding the Shared ICT Service.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Suggested that further explanations of costs were
needed.
ii.
Questioned the compatibility of the systems
currently used by the different authorities.
iii.
Questioned how the three authorities, with
different functions, could be brought together. For example, only two had
housing services.
In response to Members’ questions the Director of Business
Transformation said the following:
i.
Northgate held a fixed term contract which would
run until 2018, and this had been factored into the proposals. The contract
would not be terminated as no breach of contract had occurred.
ii.
Some applications would be service specific but it
was expected that the majority of systems would be compatible.
iii.
Future provision would offer better value for
money.
Councillor Herbert
stated that this service was important and this was an opportunity to achieve
both better value for money and an improved service.
The Committee resolved by unanimously to endorse the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Publication date: 08/09/2015
Date of decision: 13/07/2015