Venue: Meeting Room 1, Council Offices, Priory Road, Spalding
Contact: Christine Morgan 01775 764454
To sign as a correct record the minutes of the following meetings:
The minutes of the special joint meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel and the Policy Development Panel held on 4 December 2012 and the meeting of the Performance Monitoring Panel held on 11 December 2012 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.
With regard to the item on Gypsy and Traveller Sites, that was considered at the meeting held on 11 December 2012, the Chairman again requested that the Panel be updated on the following issues, as soon as possible:
· Members of the Panel were anxious that issues at the Holbeach site were concluded before any further work progressed.
· Regarding the transfer of title, the Audit Commission had advised that it would be prudent to secure a letter from the Secretary of State sanctioning the transfer with differential vaues, in order to mitigate against any possible future legal challenge – what was the current position regarding this?
· What would the final figure for the cost of the Holbeach site be?
To note the current Key Decision Plan
Consideration was given to the current Key Decision Plan, which had been issued on 18 January 2013.
That the current Key Decision Plan be noted.
Provision of Members' IT
The Director of IT (Compass Point Business Services), Gary Stephens, to be invited to attend the meeting to answer members’ questions regarding their IT provision.
At the last meeting of the Panel, held on 11 December 2012, members had raised concerns regarding their IT provision and the following issues had been raised:
· Was delivery of IT to members as good as it should be?
· Was the current provision of members’ IT value for money?
· Members were unhappy with the way in which problems and issues with their laptops were resolved and how long it sometimes took to resolve (or not, as was sometimes the case)
· Members were unhappy with the required frequency of password changes
In response to the Panel’s request, the Director of IT was in attendance at the meeting to answer members concerns. During the discussion, the following issues were raised:
· What was the Director’s opinion of how things were currently working with regard to member IT provision?
· Updates could not currently be made by members, the IT department had to undertake these updates.
· Passwords were a problem for some members. Why did passwords have to be changed every 90 days? Some members had difficulty changing their passwords. There were too many different passwords required to access the system.
· Would the new single sign on allow members to change passwords themselves?
· How long would the trial take and when could members hope to see changes to the way they logged in?
· It was suggested that the trial should be undertaken by a group of members, and with members of varying IT ability. Comment was also made as to whether the IT department was aware of how Councillors worked ... view the full minutes text for item 55.
To present the Interim Report of the Effectiveness of CCTV Task Group (report of the Assistant Director, Democratic Services enclosed)
Consideration was given to the report of the Chairman of the Effectiveness of CCTV Task Group, which made interim recommendations to the Panel regarding the re-convened Task Group.
The Cabinet had considered the recommendations of the original Task Group in June 2010, and since then, the Performance Monitoring Panel had monitored Portfolio Holder progress on these recommendations. On 6 November 2012, the Panel had agreed to re-convene the Task Group, with the following Terms of Reference:
‘To examine the effectiveness of the Council’s CCTV service and prospects for future provision’.
The Task Group had not yet concluded its work but given recent developments regarding a possible countywide CCTV system, it had produced an interim report for the Panel’s consideration. The Chairman of the Task Group advised that as there were currently a number of issues around the future of CCTV provision, the Task Group thought it necessary to make recommendations to Cabinet to reassure local residents that CCTV provision would continue.
The Chairman of the Task Group reported that since the agenda had been sent out, additional information regarding funding for CCTV had been identified, and therefore proposed that the following information be included within the Interim Report:
‘SHDC contribution to the current CCTV provision is contained within the proposed base budget at current levels for 2013/14, pending the decisions of parishes as to whether they wish to continue. Money was set aside from reserves from savings within community development in the last financial year (2011/12) which could be drawn down to support interim arrangements if agreed.’
a) That the Interim Report of the Effectiveness of CCTV in South Holland Task Group be received;
b) That the recommendations of the Task Group, as detailed below, be submitted to Cabinet for approval:
· That Officers secure a further yearly contract with Grimston Technical Services;
· That an annual or bi-annual meeting is arranged with all partners involved to discuss requirements; and
· That CCTV is re-evaluated in 3 to 12 months time when new broadband technology is available; and
c) That prior to its submission to Cabinet, section 8.1 of the Task Group’s Interim Report be amended, substituting the second sentence – ‘this will be initially funded through the Community Safety Partnership’ – with the following information:
· SHDC contribution to the current CCTV provision is contained within the proposed base budget at current levels for 2013/14, pending the decisions of parishes as to whether they wish to continue. Money was set aside from reserves from savings within community development in the last financial year (2011/12) which could be drawn down to support interim arrangements if agreed.
To set out the Work Programme of the Performance Monitoring Panel (report of the Assistant Director Democratic Services enclosed).
Consideration was given to the report of the Assistant Director (Democratic Services) which set out the Work Programme of the Performance Monitoring Panel. The Work Programme consisted of two separate sections, the first setting out the dates of future Panel meetings along with proposed items for consideration and the second setting out the Task Groups that had been identified by the Panel.
That both sections of the Panel’s Work Programme, as set out in the report of the Assistant Director (Democratic Services) be noted.