Issue - meetings

This report advises Members of the progress which has been made to date in developing the shared audit and fraud service initiative with North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC).  It also seeks Executive Member approval to proceed with the project as originally defined and to implement an appropriate long term structure for the service. 

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member be advised:

(i)                 That the progress which had been made in developing the shared service initiative to date, and the outcome of the options appraisal as set out in the Outline Business Case be noted;

(ii)               That the options for the future direction of the project, as set out in paragraph 19 be noted, and the officer recommendation to proceed with the project as originally defined (Option 4) be approved;

(iii)             That the officer recommendation to proceed with option E, as the long term organisational structure of the shared service be approved in principle;

(iv)              That the intention to report back to this Committee for final Member approval, before  progressing to full implementation of the chosen option, be noted.

Decision of the Executive Member

RESOLVED:That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASONS: (i) To enable Members to consider the progress made with the shared service initiative to date, and the outcome of the options appraisal undertaken by the Project Board.

(ii)   To enable Members to agree the next steps in the development of the shared service.

Members considered a report which advised of the progress which had been made to date in developing the shared audit and fraud service initiative with North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC). It also sought Executive Member approval to proceed with the project as originally defined and to implement an appropriate long term structure for the service. 

An Outline Business Case (OBC), attached as annex A, had been prepared which set out the aims and objectives for the project.  The OBC was intended to provide the basis for determining the most appropriate organisational structure for the shared service, as well as detailing the anticipated outputs and outcomes which the project was expected to deliver.

Members had four options to consider at this stage in the project process, as set out in the OBC.  The options were;

Option 1 – abandon the current process of collaboration between the two Councils and revert back to the service arrangements which existed prior to 1 October 2007 (do nothing);

Option 2 – abandon the current project to develop a long term shared service solution for the provision of audit and fraud services but explore more limited collaboration where appropriate (do the minimum);

Option 3 – proceed with a shared service project but change the original scope and, or direction of the process by, for example, bringing in additional partners or changing the range of services to be included (do something else);

Option 4 – proceed with the scope and direction of the project, ie to establish a formal shared service between CYC and NYCC, as originally set out and agreed by Members in September 2007 (to continue with the current development process). This was the recommended option.

Assuming that Members wished to proceed with the project as defined (Option 4), then seven possible options had been identified for the long term organisational structure of the shared service. These were detailed under paragraph 23. The Project Board assessed all of these options against a series of agreed criteria. The results of this assessment were set out in paragraph 42 of the OBC. This evaluation process identified three preferred options, as follows:

·               Option A – Joint Working Arrangement

·               Option C – Joint Committee

·               Option E – Company Limited by Shares or Guarantee

A document detailing the legal implications of implementing Option E was tabled at the meeting.

Members queried whether North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) were still enthusiastic about this project. It was reported that Unison at NYCC were in opposition to it but NYCC were still committed and that a report would now be going in April instead of March at NYCC to allow Unison to make representations.

It was questioned whether only pursuing Option E was a risk, and how would officers ensure that if Option E collapsed the whole project did not disintegrate. Officers reported that Option E would be a fully worked up business case, but Options A and C would be alternatives to fall back on. It was reported that the next  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67