To consider the Annual Governance Statement 2020/21.

Emma Duncan, Monitoring Officer and Deputy Director of Law & Strategy, explained that governance was a joint enterprise with all officers to ensure that good standards were upheld. The officer governance group met regularly and consisted of statutory officers, the head of paid service, the chief executive, the section 151 officer, the monitoring officer, the head of finance, the head of law and the head of governance. The group considered governance issues and how to improve the council’s governance framework. The Annual Governance Statement (AGS) for 2020/21 had been delivered with regard to the CIPFA ‘delivering good governance’ framework. The Centre for Public Scrutiny risk and resilience framework had also provided useful insight when producing the AGS.

The AGS set out how the local authority would look to do things, with values and behaviour being a key focus. The council wanted to build on this and the statement had been a significant piece of work. New procedures had been put in place so that Democratic Services were able to record delegated decisions made by officers. The statutory officers consultation section on reports would be reviewed as part of the process.

A significant piece of work this year had been the development of the corporate plan. This would ensure that decisions were taken that were in line with the council’s aims and objectives. Members would be able to see more of this during the rest of year and track delivery. Capacity to consult with communities had been improved so that they formed a part of the decision-making process. Virtual meetings had allowed more people to engage and participate in council meetings, while statutory rights like freedom of information had been maintained effectively.

Overview and scrutiny had been identified as an area for governance improvement, to ensure that the scrutiny function was able to add value to the council. This would involve a cultural shift with both officers and Members to ensure that scrutiny was effective. Looking at the action plan in the AGS, work had been themed around the key areas. The action plan would be kept under review by the Audit and Governance Committee.

Andrew Hill thanked Emma Duncan for her comprehensive explanation of the AGS. He felt that the council had been listening to residents more, particularly with the library consultation. On overview and scrutiny, Andrew Hill asked how it would be decided which decisions came to Full Council and which were considered by Cabinet. Andrew Hill believed that decisions that went to Cabinet did not seem to go through the scrutiny process and therefore arrived at Cabinet with little or no input from other Members. He also asked if there would be greater transparency on the public contracts that the council entered into, particularly with the RBWM Property Company.

Emma Duncan explained that executive functions came under Cabinet. Scrutiny had a number of roles but should not look to scrutinise everything. There was the call in system but policy development was an important function which was not used effectively. Scrutiny was given the opportunity to make recommendations to Cabinet and help shape decisions. This way scrutiny could add value and come up with solutions, this would allow Members to make a difference to their communities.

Councillor Sharpe commented that RBWM was on a journey and asked how far along that journey RBWM currently was, on a scale of 1 to 10.

Emma Duncan said that she had joined RBWM in February 2021 and in the time she had been at the council she had seen progress. There was a desire to do the right thing but governance was never perfect and there was still things left to do. Considering Councillor Sharpe’s query of a rating, Emma Duncan said that the authority was over the worst of the issues and was now looking at how to build for the future.

Considering Andrew Hills point on transparency, Emma Duncan explained that there would always be some information that the council would not be able to share. However, RBWM was more open than a lot of authorities.

Councillor L Jones asked how capacity was affected by financial constraints. She asked if Members would get the opportunity to comment on performance monitors before they were put into the performance framework. Councillor L Jones welcomed that scrutiny was going to be reviewed.

Emma Duncan said that it was important to develop capacity in the right places. It was important to deliver things like training where it was required, particularly for Members. The review of the performance management framework could take place as a ‘scrutiny in a day’ session. The new corporate plan was evidence based and the same applied to the performance indicators. It was important that Members listened to what officers had set for performance indicators and did not reject them for no reason. There would be opportunities for Members to provide input and test performance indicators.

The Chairman asked what the council was doing for those on apprenticeships.

Emma Duncan said that the corporate plan consultation was being sent out next week and officers wanted to hear from the public on the areas that they would like to see in the corporate plan. The consultation would be done through a new platform called Engagement HQ.

Councillor Bond commented on the officer teams that were part of the governance framework and suggested that they overlapped, along with the Leaders Board. He asked how this linked with the political side of the council. Councillor Bond said that the AGS was very comprehensive on the risks the council faced and specifically on each type of risk.

Emma Duncan explained that the council used a committee structure, which meant that there was Full Council, Cabinet and then other committees, all of which had their own functions and powers. Officers made decisions which were made through the officer meetings. Leaders Board was an informal Cabinet meeting where Cabinet Members could discuss reports and address any issues. Members were the decision makers, any big decisions above a certain threshold that were made by officers had to be published as an Officer Decision Notice. Smaller decisions were made under delegated authority and did not have to be publicly reported. Officers made sure that Members had the tools to make decisions. Regarding procurement, the action plan suggested that the procurement process would be looked at. The point of tender was usually confidential information but other information around the process could be disclosed.

Councillor Baldwin said that he had raised the issue of the RBWM Property Company with Cabinet and he had suggested that the two opposition leaders were kept involved with the creation of the report but this was rejected.

Emma Duncan said the action plan was developed through the scrutiny committees. It was good practise to develop reports through the scrutiny system and promoted good governance. The formal committee structure allowed for transparency, accountability and allowed the discussion and decision to be minuted and recorded.

Councillor L Jones said that she would like to place on record her concern about the financial constraints when looking at capacity within the organisation and whether there was enough finance to ensure that objectives were met.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Audit and Governance Committee noted the report and:

i)             Considered the draft 2020/21 AGS, identified any specific matters which should be brought to the attention of Council or Cabinet.

ii)            Recommended the 2020/21 AGS to the Leader of the Council and Chief Executive for signature and publication with the Council’s Statement of Accounts.

iii)           Requested that update reports be provided to the Committee summarising progress on the AGS Action Plan.