This report responds to the request made by the committee at its meeting on 19^th October for an update on the current position regarding the timetable on review of the Community Network contract and in relation to the four critical recommendations set out in paragraph 11 of the update number two on the Interim Assurance Report 07/08.

The Committee considered a report which responded to a request by the Committee at its meeting on 19th October 2007 for an update on the current position regarding the timetable on review of the Community Network contract and in relation to the four critical recommendations set out in paragraph 11 of update number two on the Interim Assurance report 2007/08.

Mr G Cole, Head of Corporate and Customer Services, reported that the workshop planned in November for Legal, Audit, Procurement and ICT Services had been delayed and would take place in December. A contractors action plan had been produced in consultation with Audit Services and was currently being considered by Directors. He made reference to the review of the Community Network Contract being undertaken by the Society of Information Technology Managers (SOCITM) and informed the Committee that the report by SOCITM should be received within the next week. Also that recommendation 1 as set out on page 2 of the report had been embedded in ICT projects.

Discussion ensued regarding Council procedures relating to contracts in excess of £50,000. Mrs S Rees, the Director of Resources, reminded Members of Contractual Standing Orders which were set out in the Council’s Constitution and also of the protocols and procedures for Cabinet Key decisions.

Mr K O’Keefe, the Legal Practice Manager explained to Members the Legal Services role in respect of contracts. He emphasised that if contracts were complex then Legal Services were likely to be involved. Legal Services did not however have the ability to be aware of all Council contracts which were being acted upon.

The Director of Resources reminded Members that the Working Group which the Committee had set up would be considering the revised Scheme of Delegation, Budget and Policy Procedural Rules and Contract Procedural Rules and would be able to review areas such as that which had been referred to by Mr O’Keefe.

Councillor R H Smith was of the view that the report should be rejected for the following reasons:

(a)               The Financial Implications paragraph in the report made no reference to the absence of budgetary provision in 2007/08 for the CNU contract.

(b)               There should not be several separate contractual procurement instructions as referred to in the report for the ICT Division. There should be one procedural instruction which covers all contracts.

(c)               The content of the report was unclear, incomplete and poorly expressed. He referred to several instances of terminology which could not be understood, the guide to procurement which was unexplained, unspecified target dates and no justification of the outsourcing of the CNU contract.

(d)               With regard to the Review of the CNU contract as referred to in the final paragraph of the report, the cost of the review should have been reported. Also that at a meeting of this  Committee on 21st September 2007 it was reported that the review had been initiated yet in the report put to this meeting it had not commenced. Can the Committee be informed which information is correct.

RESOLVED: That            (i)         further consideration of this report be deferred  to enable the Director of Corporate and Customer Services to provide a  report  giving detailed responses to the points raised in (a) to (d) above  by Councillor Smith; and

                                          (ii)         the Director of Corporate and Customer Services be instructed to attend the next meeting of this Committee to present the report.