Agenda item

Monitor 1 2018/19 - Key Corporate Risks

This report presents an update on the key corporate risks (KCRs) for City of York Council, including a detailed analysis of KCR3 (Effective and Strong Partnerships).

Minutes:

Members considered a report that presented an update on the key corporate risks (KCRs) for City of York Council, including a detailed analysis of KCR3 (Effective and Strong Partnerships).

 

The Finance & Procurement Manager and Head of Corporate Strategy and City Partnerships attended the meeting to present the report and answer Member questions. They stated that there were no substantial changes to report. 

 

In relation to KCR3 (Effective and Strong Partnerships) Officers stated that a risk would be to not effectively manage partnerships across the City. A focus within the Council at this time was the quality and nature of relationships with other organisations. It was important to retain flexibility and to ensure the correct level of dialogue and to understand the challenges facing partner organisations.

 

In response to Member questions they stated:

 

·        In situations, such as the York Central Partnership, where the Council had more than one role, conflict of interest was always a risk, however governance arrangements were in place and conflicts would therefore be identified. There would be clarity of roles as part of any formal board being set up. It was also highlighted that the function of the ‘planning authority’ was totally separate and planning decisions were always made in isolation; 

·        The report contained a random selection of partnerships;

·        The Creating Resilient Communities Working Group (CRCWG) was an internal group which met every two months. It was made up of a cross section of Officers from across the Council who were involved in the design and delivery of services which interact with communities. The group was an opportunity for Officers to work in tandem for the benefit of residents;

·        Conversations with partners happened regularly, but not always in a formal way;

·        The new Safeguarding Partnership arrangement which had replaced the Safeguarding Children Board was not a formal arrangement, however each partner still had statutory safeguarding responsibilities which should mitigate risk; and

·        In terms of the Health and Care Place Based Improvement Partnership it was still early days and so far there had only been two meetings. The published CQC action plan was there to drive improvements, but the important question for the board was how it would ensure actions were driven forward

 

Members also highlighted the following issues:

 

·        That when Members sat on an outside board as a Director, it should be clear that they were not representing the Council, they were attending meetings as a member of that board;

·        That some of the things listed in the report as risks – for example ‘increased ethnic diversity’ and ‘popularity of universities’ – were actually positives for the City and should be worded differently, or referred to as ‘risks and uncertainties’;

·        Concern about a lack of statutory responsibility in relation to the move away from Local Safeguarding Children Boards; and

·        A lack of transparency surrounding the Health and Wellbeing Board, particularly in relation to private discussions on public issues.

 

Resolved:  That Members;

 

a)   considered and commented on the key corporate risks included at Annex A;

 

b)   considered and commented on the information provided in relation to KCR3 Effective and Strong Partnerships included at Annex B;

 

c)   note that the 2018/19 monitor 2 report will include a detailed analysis of KCR4 Changing Demographics; and

 

Reason:     To provide assurance that the authority is effectively understanding and managing its key risks.

Supporting documents:

 

Feedback
Back to the top of the page