Agenda item

To receive updates from the chairmen of task and finish groups appointed by the Resources and Place Scrutiny Committee.

Councillor Richard Somner made a general point that it would be useful for a brief overview of activity to be provided with the agenda papers for this standing item.

Action:

·       A brief overview of activity would be provided with the agenda papers to provide an update on progress with task and finish groups.

Project Management

Councillor Chris Read reported that the introductory meeting had taken place and further dates were being organised. Useful feedback had been received from Kent County Council in relation to their project work.

Councillor Carolyne Culver suggested the task group would benefit from considering a best practice project undertaken by the Council.

Sports Hub

Councillor Culver provided the following statement to the Committee:

The task and finish group completed its report in the first week of February 2025 and Corporate Board, on 18 February, concluded that it had concerns with the report. Councillor Culver met senior managers on 3 March to seek feedback about their concerns and on 13 March the Scrutiny Commission voted to do more work on the report.

On 3 April, Councillor Culver met with senior management and Councillor Jeff Brooks. Since that time the task and finish group had met on two further occasions. Once to ensure everything that had happened since the Corporate Board meeting was captured in writing and a second time to formally seek evidence from two additional officers. The minutes of the first meeting were approved, and Member comments on the minutes of the second meeting were currently with the clerk.

The current position was as follows:

1.)  The task group was waiting for suggested redactions from the legal team. This would mean some elements of the report would not be discussed in public at a scrutiny meeting. Councillor Culver was eager for this to be done as in the meanwhile all the important recommendations, including project management and PPS, were ‘gathering dust’.

2.)  The Monitoring Officer had asked for written evidence that the rugby club witness was content that the report be published. Several weeks ago, the witness informed one of the task group Members that they had no problems with the report and the information about their financial history was already in the public domain. However, the task group had been informed that this must be in writing. Councillor Culver reported that this was the fourth task and finish group she had been involved in, and the first where it had been necessary to ask witnesses for their written approval ahead of publication. A written response was awaited from that witness, but they were not obliged to respond.

3.)  The task group was waiting on evidence to back up claims made in the recent session.

Councillor Culver concluded by stating her view that guidance for task and finish groups needed to be clearer, and supported this by stating the following:

·       The task group was told that the report was too long, but Councillor Culver noted that it was shorter than the LRIE task and finish report.

·       The task group was told it had too many recommendations, but it had less than the customer services task and finish report.

·       The task group was given contradictory advice about the acceptability of councillors being involved in the drafting of the report. It had been clarified that councillors could draft task and finish reports.

Councillor Culver highlighted that this needed to be resolved. In the absence of an overarching Scrutiny Commission, the three chairmen of the scrutiny committees would need to liaise with officers to ensure any new guidance was applicable to all three committees. Otherwise, there was the risk of this situation happening again.

At the last task group meeting, Members agreed to refer the report to the Local Government Ombudsman. This action would be taken regardless of whether the report would ever come before this Committee.

Councillor Ross Mackinnon voiced his concern that this statement did not provide a balanced view of the situation with the work of this task group with no comments provided from any other parties on the work.

In response, Councillor Culver suggested that other Members of the task group could be approached for comment and officers could give their view if they wished.

Councillor Mackinnon voiced concern that it would be constitutionally inappropriate for some officers to give a view in public and asked for facilitation of private conversations external to this meeting. Councillor Culver agreed to this.

Councillor Richard Somner suggested there was scope for the Committee to review a redacted version of the task group’s report in Part I, with the full report in Part II.

Councillor Culver emphasised the need for clarity on what a task and finish group could do, how membership was selected, and so on, to ensure that it was transparent to Members and the public what the parameters were and proposed that the three scrutiny chairmen and Democratic Services work on this together.

Action:

·       The three scrutiny chairmen and Democratic Services to carry out a piece of work to achieve clarity about the purpose and parameters of task and finish groups.