Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Leader of the Council
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: No
Is subject to call in?: No
Approve business plans for shared services and terms of reference for Shared Services Joint Group.
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report provided information regarding the terms of
reference for the shared services Joint Group between the City Council, South Cambridgeshire
District Council and Huntingdon District Council and the business cases for ICT
and Legal services.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Approved
the business plans for each of the shared services attached at Appendix 1 of
the Officer’s report.
Decision
of the Leader
ii.
Approved
the Terms of Reference (see Appendix 2) for the Shared Services Joint Group, to
enable that Group to operate in a formal committee setting from September 2016,
prior to which they will continue to be held on a quarterly basis in shadow
format.
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.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Questioned how works would
be funded between the shared services and the different authorities.
ii.
Questioned how the scrutiny
process would work with the Shared Services Joint Group.
iii.
Asked what the costs would
be of the Shared Services Joint Group.
iv.
The financial information
should be provided in the same way in each of the reports on the three services
and identify the costs and savings for each of the 3 authorities. Speed of
service needed to be agreed as an objective for all 3 services. The ICT
objectives needed to include value for money.
In response to Members’ questions the Director of Business
Transformation said the following:
i.
There was an
inter-authority agreement which governed the relationship between the
authorities who shared services. In relation to ICT and investment this would
have to be judged on a case by case basis however the general principle was
that costs would be shared however if there was a unique requirement of this
Council, then this Council would bear the costs arising from the asset
required. Similarly if there was a unique investment required by another
authority then the City Council would not pay anything towards that asset.
ii.
Referred to 4.6 of the
Terms of Reference which stated that overview and scrutiny would still have a
role in the decision making processes of the Council. Officer contacts for each
service would be made available.
iii.
The Chair of the Shared
Services Joint Group would rotate between the authorities and the Democratic
Services support would be undertaken by the Authority whose member was the
Chair.
iv.
In the inter-authority
documents ‘value for money’ may need to be stated more clearly. In terms of
speed, requirements may vary between the authorities. At this stage the Council
did not have the necessary analysis to have key performance indicators.
The Leader made the following comments:
i.
The Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee would still get reports regarding ICT and Legal services.
ii.
Shared services were
required in order to achieve savings as there were challenges regarding the
Council’s budget from 2018.
iii.
Looking strategically at
Legal and ICT the Joint Committee may need to consider the standardisation of terms.
iv.
The City Council would
still be in charge of the services that the City delivered.
The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.
The Leader approved the recommendation at the meeting. The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved the
recommendation by email after the meeting.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
and the Leader (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor or the
Leader.
Publication date: 23/05/2016
Date of decision: 21/03/2016