To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor KG Grumbley.  Councillors JP French and JA Hyde also sent apologies as Cabinet Members.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor AT Oliver who, following his appointment as Vice-Chairman of the Health Scrutiny Committee, had replaced Councillor SPA Daniels on the Strategic Monitoring Committee.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

Councillor PA Andrews declared a personal interest in agenda item 6: Draft Capital Programme 2008/09 as a local authority appointed school governor.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meetings held on 21st January, 2008 and 31st January, 2008.

In relation to minute number 54: Elections 2007 a Member recorded concerns about aspects of the election process in relation to training of those involved in the count and the level of supervision.

RESOLVED:

That       (a)     the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 January 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman;

                        and

               (b)    the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 2008 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to adding the words,  “In his view” at the start of the second sentence of the penultimate paragraph of page 12 of the Minutes as numbered in the printed agenda.

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the Committee could scrutinise in the future.

There were no suggestions from members of the public.

To seek the Strategic Monitoring Committee’s views on the draft financial strategy for 2008 - 2011. 

The Committee’s views were sought on the draft financial strategy for 2008-2011.

The strategy was to be considered by Cabinet on 21 February who would make recommendations for consideration by Council on 7 March 2008.

The report to Cabinet on 24 January was appended to the report together with the Draft Medium Term Financial Management Strategy 2008-2011 (MTFS).  The report to Cabinet had contained a number of recommendations from the Corporate Management Board (CMB) to Cabinet.  These had in the main been approved by Cabinet, subject to a number of specific considerations

The Financial Resource Model, as set out in an appendix to the Cabinet report, had been updated to reflect a number of developments, including the final local government finance settlement figures and Cabinet’s recommendation to plan for a Council tax increase of 4.4% in 2008/09.

The Director of Resources presented the report focusing on the recommendations of CMB as approved by Cabinet.  She highlighted the following points:

·         The month 10 financial monitoring report showed a reduction in the projected overspend on the revenue budget from about £1 million to about £700,000.

·         A change in approach to the treatment of the social care contingency and modernisation funding for adult social care and children’s social care, transferring them from the corporate base budget to the relevant directorate base budgets for the reasons set out in the report.

·         A change to the current policy requiring core services to manage within a 1% tolerance of net budget to a requirement that spending should be within the agreed budget.

·         Continuation of the policy that there should be no provision for inflation on non-pay budgets, so building in efficiency gains at Directorate level. 

·         Corporate efficiency gains to be secured through improved procurement.

·         The projected figures for financial capacity for 2008-2011, noting that the capacity for 2008/09 was proposed to be allocated to a reserve to be called “Modernisation Plans” to be released as such plans were formally approved.  She added that it was also proposed that some of the financial capacity for the following two years would be released for modernisation, as priorities, such as accommodation needs and changes to business processes and services, were established and plans agreed.

·         The intention to create a Bellwin threshold reserve to deal with flooding or other eligible emergencies.

·         The plan to increase the level of the general reserve from 2.5% of the net revenue budget to 3.5% of the net revenue budget (£4.5 million).

·         The intention to allocate any excess above the proposed £4.5 million general reserve to the Modernisation Plans reserve.

·         That Modernisation Plans earmarked reserve for 2008/09 would be approximately £2.3 million, noting that this included a contribution of £300,000 from the Primary Care Trust.

Members welcomed the content and clarity of the report.  In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         An update was requested on plans for the Herefordshire Connects Programme.  The Chief Executive said that if Cabinet on 21 February approved the acquisition of the social care  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

To seek the Strategic Monitoring Committee’s views on the draft capital programme for 2008/09. 

The Committee’s views were sought on the draft capital programme 2008/09.

A copy of the report to Cabinet on 24 January 2008 was appended to the report.   Appendix 1 to the report showed the expected funding position for the next 3 financial years.  Appendix 2 listed all the bids received for 2008/09.

The Head of Financial Services presented the report, outlining the basis on which schemes had been recommended for inclusion in the programme and how they would be funded.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         It was noted that the justification for recommending the schemes to be funded by prudential borrowing was that failure to progress them carried a legal or reputational risk to the Council.  It was emphasised that the failure to progress a bid for the development of the Master’s House, Ledbury carried both of these risks.  The current library was in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act and the threat of action against the Council could well be acted upon if there were no clear plan for a replacement in place.  It was also understood that English Heritage might well soon classify the Master’s House which was a Grade 2* listed building, as being at risk.  The Committee was reminded that assurances had been given by the Council in consultation exercises and at public meetings about the commitment to develop the property.  It was suggested that Cabinet should therefore be asked to reconsider proposals for the property’s development and include the development within the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

The Director of Resources said that the project was a large one and would be difficult to afford.  This did not preclude a bid, but, whilst officers continued to explore options, there was no firm capital bid and in the absence of firm costings it was difficult to include the proposal in the MTFS, but there was scope for such bids to come forward given financial capacity into the future was indicated.

·         A request was made that in cases where a developer’s contribution was secured, by the Council consideration should be given to using the income in the area where it was generated.

·         In response to a request for clarification about the pattern of planned capital expenditure in the Children and Young People’s Directorate the Head of Financial Services said that the increases shown in 2009/10 and 2010/11 related to Government Grant under the Building Schools for the Future initiative.  He confirmed that this funding was secured.

·         With regard to Colwall railway bridge it was noted that it was no longer intended to provide a Bailey bridge and that negotiations were continuing with Network Rail.  It was requested that Cabinet be advised of the Committee’s concerns at the need for clarity about the proposals for the replacement of Colwall railway bridge and specifically any costs to be borne by the Council.

·         A Local Member and school governor emphasised the importance of completing the Holmer School flood alleviation works.

 RESOLVED:

That    (a)        Cabinet be recommended  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

To seek the Strategic Monitoring Committee’s views on proposed revisions to the Council’s Financial Procedure Rules and Contract Procedure Rules made in the light of the Section 151 Officer report and Crookall Review last year.

The Committee’s views were sought on proposed revisions to the Council’s Financial Procedure Rules and Contract Procedure Rules and, as contained in a supplementary report, changes also to the Budget and Policy Framework and a proposed amendment to arrangements for receipt of questions to Council from Councillors.

Copies of the Procedure Rules and Contract Rules had been included with the agenda papers.   The supplementary report contained updated versions highlighting further amendments to the documents following their consideration by the Constitutional Review Working Group on 11 February. 

Mini guides to the asset management, financial management and procurement framework supporting the revised Procedure Rules were also circulated with the supplementary report.

The Director of Resources presented the report noting that drafts of the documents had previously been considered by the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee, the Standards Committee and the Constitutional Review Working Group.  She explained that the aim was to ensure that respective accountabilities were clear. She commented on some of the specific changes.

In the ensuing discussion the following principal points were made:

·         The process for approving the documents was questioned.  It was stated that the revised draft of section 12 of the Constitution presented to the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee in December 2007, titled “scheme of delegation”, had at section 12.15 proposed to allocate responsibility for reviewing that scheme to that Committee.  That Committee had at the same time considered the Procedure Rules and Contract Rules and approved revisions.  That Committee had the detailed knowledge that would enable it to give proper consideration to the latest versions of these documents as now presented.

The Head of Legal and Democratic Services said that the currently approved process for considering changes to the Constitution required consideration by the Constitutional Review Working Group, then by Strategic Monitoring Committee, then by Cabinet and then by Council.  The reports could still be presented to the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee on 29February if required.

The Chief Executive reiterated that in reviewing the documents the aim had been to ensure clarity.  The documents before the Committee sat alongside the revised scheme of delegation, which remained draft and had not yet been approved by Council.

·         The differences between the documents approved by the Audit and Corporate Governance Committee and those before the Strategic Monitoring Committee were explored in detail quoting specific references in the documents.  In outline there were three principal areas of concern:  an apparent weakening of the role of the Director of Resources; seven instances of a reduction in the role and involvement of Cabinet Members, which taken collectively were considered of great significance; and what were described as several other notable changes and omissions, new errors and anomalies. 

The Chief Executive acknowledged in response that, on reflection, some clarity may have been lost in the drafting process and the documents may benefit from a further, final review.

The Committee recognised that the proposed changes to the documents had been made in response to the Crookall review of ICT financial and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

To consider the Committee’s work programme.

The Committee considered its work programme.

It was requested that a report be made to the Committee on the outcome of Cabinet’s response to the Committee’s recommendations following its call-in of Cabinet’s decision of 13 December in relation to the Herefordshire Connects programme.

RESOLVED:   That the work programme as amended serve as the basis for further development.