Agenda, decisions and minutes

At this point, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interest they may have in the business on this agenda.

Members were invited to declare at this point in the meeting any personal or prejudicial interests they might have in the business on the agenda.  No interests were declared.

To consider the exclusion of the press and public from the meeting during consideration of the following:

·        Exempt Minute 107 in the minutes of the Executive meeting held on 20 November 2007 (Agenda item 3)

·        Annex A to Agenda Item 11(Chief Officer Search and Selection Contract)

on the grounds that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons.  This information is classed as exempt under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as revised by The Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

RESOLVED: That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of:

·        Exempt Minute 107 in the minutes of the Executive meeting held on 20 November 2007 (Agenda Item 3)

·        Annex A to Agenda Item 11 (Chief Officer Search and Selection Contract)

on the grounds that they contain information relating to the financial or business affairs of particular persons, which is classed as exempt under paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A to Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as revised by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006).

To approve and sign the minutes of the Executive meeting held on 20 November 2007.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Executive meeting held on 20 November 2007 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting, members of the public who registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Executive’s remit can do so.  The deadline for registering is 5:00 pm on Monday, 3 December.

It was reported that there had been no registrations to speak at the meeting under the Council’s Public Participation Scheme.

To receive details of those items that are listed on the Executive Forward Plan for the next two meetings.

Members received and noted the details of those items that were listed on the Executive Forward Plan for the next two meetings of the Executive.

This report presents the minutes of recent meetings of the Social Inclusion Working Group and the Young People’s Working Group and asks Members to consider the advice given by the Working Groups in their capacity as advisory bodies to the Executive.

RESOLVED: (i)         That the minutes be noted.

                        (ii)        That, in future, draft minutes of Working Groups requiring Executive endorsement be submitted as soon as they become available.

                        (iii)       That Officers be asked to take into account the comments of the Social Inclusion Working Group on the Future York report, especially those covering employability, disparity of income and worklessness.

                        (iv)       That the support being given to the Disabled People’s Forum be welcomed.

                        (v)        That the decision of the Young People’s Working Group (YPWG) to proceed with the election of a Children and Young People’s Champion, using York College and all primary and secondary schools in the City be welcomed.

                        (vi)       That the decision from the YPWG that the Champion should preferably not be a member of the Executive or Shadow Executive be noted.

REASON:      In accordance with the requirements of the Constitution in relation to the role of Working Groups and to avoid delays in addressing issues.

Members considered a report which presented the minutes of the Social Inclusion Working Group (SIWG) meeting held on 19 September 2007 and the Young People’s Working Group (YPWG) meeting held on 9 October 2007.

There were no resolutions in the minutes which required the specific approval or endorsement of the Executive.  However, Members’ attention was drawn to the comments of the SIWG on the report of the Future York Group and the advice of the YPWG in respect of the Young People’s Champion selection process.  The latter had been reported to the meeting of the Executive Member for Children’s Services and Advisory Panel on 15 October 2007.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RESOLVED: (i)         That the minutes be noted.

                        (ii)        That, in future, draft minutes of Working Groups requiring Executive endorsement be submitted as soon as they become available.

                        (iii)       That Officers be asked to take into account the comments of the Social Inclusion Working Group on the Future York report, especially those covering employability, disparity of income and worklessness.

                        (iv)       That the support being given to the Disabled People’s Forum be welcomed.

                        (v)        That the decision of the Young People’s Working Group (YPWG) to proceed with the election of a Children and Young People’s Champion, using York College and all primary and secondary schools in the City, be welcomed.

                        (vi)       That the decision from the YPWG that the Champion should preferably not be a member of the Executive or Shadow Executive be noted.

REASON:      In accordance with the requirements of the Constitution in relation to the role of Working Groups and to avoid delays in addressing issues.

This report asks the Executive to consider which of the political groups should be invited to appoint the Lord Mayor for the Municipal Year 2008/09 and proposes an amendment to the current nomination scheme.

[See also under Part B Minutes]

RESOLVED: That the Labour Group be invited to nominate the Lord Mayor for the 2008/09 Municipal Year.

REASON:      In accordance with the agreed points system and to ensure that the Council secures the necessary leadership to undertake its civic functions.

[See also under Part B Minutes]

Members considered a report which asked them to decide which of the political groups should be invited to nominate the Lord Mayor for the 2008/09 Municipal Year and proposed an amendment to the current nomination policy.

The system for nominating the Lord Mayor was based on an accumulation of points determined by the number of seats held by each political group on the Council.  It was proposed to amend the current policy, agreed by Members on 5 January 1996, to permit a group which lost all its seats on the Council to hold over any unspent points it had accumulated up to that time until it once again gained seats on the Council. 

The report set out the number of points which would be accumulated by each group under the existing and revised policies.  In each case the Labour Group, with a total of 36 points, would qualify to nominate the Lord Mayor for 2008/09.  However, the Conservative Group would only qualify for points under a revised policy Members were asked to decide whether they wished to amend the policy (Option 1) or to make no amendments (Option 2).

Members noted that the points totals recorded in the report were incorrect.  Under the proposed scheme the correct calculation would be as follows:

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RESOLVED: (i)         That the Labour Group be invited to nominate the Lord Mayor for the 2008/09 Municipal Year.

REASON:      In accordance with the agreed points system and to ensure that the Council secures the necessary leadership to undertake its civic functions

This report (referred to on the Forward Plan as ‘Kendric Ash Review Update’) provides an update on progress to date on the transformation partnership to improve the Council’s internal transport provision, improve service quality and make significant efficiency savings. 

RESOLVED: That the progress on this project be noted.

REASON:      In accordance with Council requirements to keep Members informed on the progress of major projects.

Members considered a report which provided an update on progress made on the transformation partnership set up to improve the Council’s internal transport provision, improve service quality and make efficiency savings.

Kendric Ash (now Northgate Kendric Ash, or NKA) had been appointed as the Council’s transformation partner for a 30 month period from April 2007.  The partnership covered the delivery of both contracted and internally provided transport in the areas of mainstream home to school transport, Special Educational Needs transport, transport for ‘looked after’ children and transport for adults with learning and physical disabilities.

The report outlined the operational arrangements under the NKA model, together with progress on key work streams and outstanding issues still to be dealt with.  It confirmed that the project was on course and expected to produce over £800k in gross savings over the life of the partnership, with annual net savings of over £650k after that.

Members welcomed the report and thanked the Officers and Consultants involved in the partnership.  They commented that it was important to keep a tight control on budgetary issues and the method of allocating any savings, also to keep the project under review in order to monitor quality and ensure the maintenance of best value.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RESOLVED: That the progress on this project be noted.

REASON:      In accordance with Council requirements to keep Members informed on the progress of major projects.

This report seeks to brief Executive on consultation undertaken following receipt of the Future York Group Report and makes recommendations for the Council, working in partnership with others, to adopt in response to the Report. 

RESOLVED: That the actions set out in paragraph 5 of the report and in the framework attached to the Officer report be agreed as a response to the Future York Group Report.

REASON:      To help shape the effectiveness of future action.

Members considered a report which provided a briefing on consultation undertaken following receipt of the Future York Group Report and made recommendations for the Council, working in partnership with others, to adopt in response to the Report.

The Future York Group had been commissioned by the Council to undertake an independent strategic review of the local economy, following a series of announcements regarding job losses in the City.  The resulting Report had been made widely available since it was handed over to the Council on 12 June.  Progress on the Group’s key recommendations was set out in paragraph 5 of the report to the Executive.  Suggested responses to each recommendation, detailing action to be taken, how, when and by whom, were outlined in an attached framework document.  This would be used to ensure that action continued to be taken and progress monitored.

Further work requested on the environmental implications of the Report had been undertaken by the Sustainability team in City Strategy.  Details were annexed to the report in a document entitled ‘Footprint Response to the Future York Report’.

With reference to the comments made on the Report at the Executive meeting on 10 July, Members agreed a set of revised comments, details of which are included in the table attached as Annex 1 to these minutes.

It was noted that the Shadow Executive had not submitted any detailed comments on this item.

RESOLVED: That the actions set out in paragraph 5 of the report and in the framework attached to the Officer report be agreed as a response to the Future York Group Report.

REASON:      To help shape the effectiveness of future action.

This report seeks Members’ approval of a proposed strategy for using the limited revenue and capital resources available to deal with the substantial repair and maintenance backlog of the Council’s corporate land, buildings and highways, by basing decisions on future investment on the need and viability of the asset.

RESOLVED: (i)         That Option A be agreed and the 10-year Corporate Repair and Maintenance Strategy with performance indicators, detailed at Annex 1 to the report, be approved.

REASON:      So that a co-ordinated approach to dealing with a backlog of maintenance and future repair and maintenance, based upon need and the viability of the assets, is followed.

                        (ii)        That, during the annual budget build process, the appropriate level of annual revenue and capital repair and maintenance resources to assign, in order to ensure the achievement of the objectives and priorities set out in the Strategy, be considered.

REASON:      To ensure that the Strategy is effective and achievable within the 10-year timescale.

Members considered a report which sought their approval for a proposed strategy to use the limited revenue and capital resources available to deal with the substantial repair and maintenance backlog on the Council’s corporate land, buildings and highways.

Although levels of outstanding repair and maintenance had reduced slightly in recent years, they were still very high, as revenue budgets were often only sufficient to deal with urgent repairs.  More recently, capital funds had been allocated to deal with this issue, but there had been no overall structured approach across the Council.  A Repair and Maintenance Strategy would help the Council to deliver its corporate priorities and meet CPA requirements.  A draft Strategy, developed by the Corporate Asset Management Group, was attached as Annex 1 to the report.

Members were asked to decide whether to adopt the proposed Strategy, as recommended (Option A) or to continue with current arrangements and not adopt the Strategy (Option B).  The latter was not recommended, as the lack of co-ordination on limited budgets would mean that Best Value would not be achieved and the CPA requirement for level 3 judgement - to develop and implement a Repair and Maintenance Strategy - would not be met.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RESOLVED: (i)         That Option A be agreed and the 10-year Corporate Repair and Maintenance Strategy with performance indicators, detailed at Annex 1 to the report, be approved.

REASON:      So that a co-ordinated approach to dealing with a backlog of maintenance and future repair and maintenance, based upon need and the viability of the assets, is followed.

                        (ii)        That, during the annual budget build process, the appropriate level of annual revenue and capital repair and maintenance resources to assign, in order to ensure the achievement of the objectives and priorities set out in the Strategy, be considered.

REASON:      To ensure that the Strategy is effective and achievable within the 10-year timescale.

This report asks the Executive to decide on the award of the corporate contract for the search and selection of Chief Officers, following a full tendering process, as Officers’ recommendations are not to award the lowest cost supplier.

RESOLVED: (i)         That Option B be agreed and the contract awarded to Gatenby Sanderson.

REASON:      So that the contract is awarded to the highest combined scorer, taking into account commercial and technical considerations.

                        (ii)        That Officers be asked to bring forward proposals clarifying the circumstances in which the Council will seek to utilise the services of the recruitment consultants.

REASON:      To ensure that consultants are used only in appropriate circumstances.

Members considered a report which asked them to decide upon the award of the corporate contract for the search and selection of Chief Officers, following a full tendering process.

The decision to award a contract for this purpose had been taken to remove the risk of breaching the OJEU thresholds under the current practice of obtaining separate quotes for consultants.  Seven organisations had submitted a full tender for the contract, of which three – Hays, Gatenby Sanderson and Veredus - had been invited to present in front of Group Leaders.  Detailed results of the evaluation of these three tenders were set out in an exempt annex to the report (Annex A).

Members were asked to consider the following options:

Option A – choose the lowest cost supplier of the three (Hays Executive);

Option B – choose the supplier with the best combination of cost and quality (Gatenby Sanderson).  This was the recommended option.

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RESOLVED: (i)         That Option B be agreed and the contract awarded to Gatenby Sanderson.

REASON:      So that the contract is awarded to the highest combined scorer, taking into account commercial and technical considerations.

                        (ii)        That Officers be asked to bring forward proposals clarifying the circumstances in which the Council will seek to utilise the services of the recruitment consultants.

REASON:      To ensure that consultants are used only in appropriate circumstances.

[See also under Part A Minutes]

RECOMMENDEDThat Option 1 be approved and the current policy amended to clarify that a group which loses all its seats on the City Council will have any accumulated points frozen until seats are once again won by that group on the Council.

REASON:      In order to formalise an assumption that was made, but not fully recorded, when the points system was originally introduced.

[See also under Part A Minutes]

Members considered a report which asked them to decide which of the political groups should be invited to nominate the Lord Mayor for the 2008/09 Municipal Year and proposed an amendment to the current nomination policy.

The system for nominating the Lord Mayor was based on an accumulation of points determined by the number of seats held by each political group on the Council.  It was proposed to amend the current policy, agreed by Members on 5 January 1996, to permit a group which lost all its seats on the Council to hold over any unspent points it had accumulated up to that time until it once again gained seats on the Council. 

The report set out the number of points which would be accumulated by each group under the existing and revised policies.  In each case the Labour Group, with a total of 36 points, would qualify to nominate the Lord Mayor for 2008/09.  However, the Conservative Group would only qualify for points under a revised policy Members were asked to decide whether they wished to amend the policy (Option 1) or to make no amendments (Option 2).

Members noted that the points totals recorded in the report were incorrect.  Under the proposed scheme the correct calculation would be as follows:

Having noted the comments of the Shadow Executive, it was

RECOMMENDEDThat Option 1 be approved and the current policy amended to clarify that a group which loses all its seats on the City Council will have any accumulated points frozen until seats are once again won by that group on the Council.

REASON:      In order to formalise an assumption that was made, but not fully recorded, when the points system was originally introduced.