Agenda and minutes

At this point, Members are asked to declare any personal or prejudicial interests 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 any of the business on the agenda. 

Councillor Potter declared personal non-prejudicial interests in Executive agenda item 7 (Bus Information Service Provision) as chair of York Wheels, who operate the Dial & Ride service, and in Executive agenda item 8 (Scrutiny of Inclusive Decision Making in City of York Council) as a member of the Inclusive Decision Making Scrutiny Panel.

To approve and sign the minutes of the Shadow Executive meeting held on 23 May 2006.

RESOLVED:             That the minutes of the meeting of the Shadow Executive held on 23 May 2006 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

At this point in the meeting members of the public who have registered their wish to speak regarding an item on the agenda or an issue within the Shadow Executive’s remit can do so. The deadline for registering is Tuesday 6 June 2006, at 10.00 am.

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

The Shadow Executive made the following comments on the Forward Plan at page 9 of the papers circulated for the Executive meeting to be held on 13 June 2006:

The Shadow Executive:

• May require Officer attendance at the relevant Shadow Executive meeting/s in respect of the following items (current Executive dates in brackets):

o       Consideration of Waste PFI Outline Business Case (27/6)

o       Update on York’s first and second LPSA’s (27/6)

o       York Central (27/6)

o       Capital Strategy Document 2006-9 (11/7)

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 5 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 13 June, at page 11.  The report presented, for approval, an updated draft of the Council’s 2006-2009 Corporate Strategy, including a summary version which had been developed to communicate the Strategy to a wider audience.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report, the following comments were agreed:

The Shadow Executive:

• Reiterates its concerns regarding the lack of vision and lack of joining up of the document, and has some remaining concerns on the measurability of some of the performance targets.
• Also considers that recommendation 24b, in line with the protocol on media issues, should be a final decision by the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader.
• Draws attention to an inaccuracy in the Leader’s foreword, which we think should probably refer to City of York Council having the lowest income per head of the population of any comparable council in the country.

RESOLVED:(i) That the Executive be asked to take the above comments into account when considering this item.

                        (ii)        That the item not be called in.

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 6 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 13 June, at page 43.  The report presented a revised Joint Municipal Waste Strategy for the North Yorkshire County Council and City of York Council waste management partnership and sought approval to adopt the Strategy.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report and questioned officers present at the meeting, the following comments were agreed:

The Shadow Executive:

• Notes the partnership document, wishes to have full details in due course on the proposed full consultation mentioned in paragraph 7 of the covering report, and seeks assurances that full consultation means full consultation and not a repeat of the previous consultation, which they considered was ineffectual.

RESOLVED:(i) That the Executive be asked to take the above comments into account when considering this item.

                        (ii)            That the item not be called in.

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 7 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 13 June, at page 85.  The report detailed alternative service provision for the Bus Information Service following the decision taken at Budget Council to close the office that operated from 20 George Hudson Street.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report and questioned officers present at the meeting, the following comments were agreed:

The Shadow Executive:

• Notes that the report is only being considered after the closure of the service.
• Has grave concerns about this decision and set of proposals, and at the Executive’s overriding of officer advice by accelerating the closure by 3 months, leaving officers with inadequate time to properly examine ways of implementing the principle the Executive had agreed.
• Fails to see how the proposal meets the corporate objectives in paragraph 43 as it can only represent a deterioration in service against these objectives.
• Is concerned that no consultation has taken place with any of the affected groups, such as older people, young people, disabled people and bus users, and that the equalities assessment still has to be carried out.
• Is concerned regarding the loss of expertise to the Council and the impact on the staff that have been made redundant.
• Is also concerned that the proposals covering the Dial & Ride Service have clearly not been worked through, that consultation has not taken place with staff and other organisations involved, and that interim arrangements are poor with a consequent knock-on on usage and bringing further potential financial problems for the Council.
• Do not know what worth to put on paragraph 41 regarding information at bus stops, given the poor record to date and that the Council has problems getting timetables up for services it is paying for.
• Expresses the view that better publicity is needed for altered provision of services and that proposals from officers for the provision of timetables in reception points were inadequate and would lead to the provision of inaccurate and out of date information.
• Has outstanding questions on the financial assessments that officers were unable to answer at the meeting.
• Has concerns about the implications for the Transport Planning Unit’s workload in the light of the interim arrangements proposed for pass and token issue, etc.
• Commented that options ii) and iii) are unacceptable and that option i) was the least worst option.

RESOLVED:(i) That the Executive be asked to take the above comments into account when considering this item.

                        (ii)            That the item not be called in.

The Shadow Executive considered a report which was listed as item 8 on the agenda for the Executive meeting on 13 June, at page 99.  The report asked Members to consider the final report of the Inclusive Decision Making Ad Hoc Scrutiny Panel, which made recommendations about improving the accessibility of the Council’s decision making processes to the local community.

Having discussed the issues set out in the report, the following comments were agreed:

The Shadow Executive:

• Commented that it is unfortunate that the report has arrived 2 months after the debate on changes to the Disabled Persons’ Advisory Group (DPAG) and setting up the Social Inclusion Working Group.
• Notes that the proposals do not make clear what the role of the Social Inclusion Working Group will be relative to the Without Walls Social Inclusion Forum and has concerns regarding overlap, duplication and confusion.
• Highlights the need for careful consideration in terms of making the arrangements work given the large range of communities of interest that the new Working Group covers, and also the need to ensure that members of the Working Group representing particular communities of interest are in contact with and accountable to those communities of interest.
• Also has concerns regarding the resourcing and funding position of the new Working Group given the disappearance of the former DPAG budget.
• Emphasises the need for the fullest consultation with all communities of interest proposed to be involved in the Working Group in relation to its set up and functions.
• Notes that the comments of DPAG and the Scrutiny Management Committee (SMC) had not been sent out with the Shadow Executive papers and there was not time for them to be properly considered at the meeting, therefore they were reserving their position in relation to these items, so that further comments could be made subsequently.

RESOLVED:(i) That the Executive be asked to take the above comments into account when considering this item.

                        (ii)            That the item not be called in.