Agenda item

Purpose: To outline the results of the investigation into the Council’s Performance Management Framework.  

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 9) outlining the results of the investigation into the Council’s Performance Management Framework.

Councillor Irene Neill, Chairman of the Task Group, made the following points:

·                    The importance of the ‘golden thread’ principle was highlighted, whereby the Council’s aims and objectives should be monitored and sought to be achieved throughout the Council Plan, Service Plans, team plans and in individual’s appraisal documents.

·                    One of the main purposes for the formation of the task group related to the structure of the Executive Cycle and the time delay this caused before the Commission could see performance reports.  It was not found to be possible to alter this so that a significant difference could be made.  However, it was recommended that the Commission’s activity should be altered to assess the impact of any measures taken to address indicators reported as red or amber to help to resolve difficulties. 

·                    There was found to be a need for a greater correlation between the budget setting process and the Council Plan process. 

·                    The Council’s practice of publishing quarterly performance reports was not commonly found in other local authorities.

Further clarity was sought on the reasons why performance reports could not be released to the Commission at an earlier stage, so that advice and assistance could be offered as part of policy development.  David Lowe advised that this was an issue of timeliness due to the time taken for reports to be seen by Corporate Board, Management Board and the Executive. 

In response to the suggestion made that this was a political decision, Councillor Quentin Webb, another Member of the task group, accepted that this was partly the case as the process needed to be in the control of Corporate Board and Executive Members.  It was felt right that they undertook the function of analysing the corrective action being taken to address poor performance. 

David Lowe went on to advise that the function of analysing indicators reported as red or amber by the Commission would enable more current discussions to be held. 

It was added that there were different methods that could be deployed in holding the Executive to account, which included questioning decisions that had been made.

Recommendation 1, which asked that the number and relevance of measures in place to evaluate progress against the aims of the Council Plan, was then discussed.  There was a view that this recommendation should be more specific in requesting that consideration should be given to reducing the number of indicators as well as ensuring they were SMART (Specific, Measurable, Agreed, Realistic and Timebound). 

The task group did discuss this aspect, but it was felt that this could not be included in the recommendation as the Council Plan had not yet been finalised.  However, it was agreed that the recommendation would be amended in light of these comments.

Councillor Anthony Stansfeld, Portfolio Holder for Performance, was then asked to comment on the report and he made the following points:

·                    Indicators needed to be relevant to, and in the control of, the Council.

·                    Having a proportion of red indicators was to be expected as part of a robust target setting process and high standards should be set. 

A view was then given that the Commission should continue to challenge those indicators reported as red. 

RESOLVED that subject to an amendment to recommendation 1, the recommendations would be approved for the consideration of the Executive.