Issue - meetings

To receive the recommendations of the Budget Scrutiny Panel. (TO FOLLOW)

RECEIVED the final report of the 2012/13 Budget Scrutiny Review (circulated separately to the agenda pack) introduced by the Vice Chair who highlighted an amendment to recommendation vi. (as shown below).  The Vice Chair explained the process  for scrutinising the budget (short reviews of three agreed areas) and emphasised the importance of clear scoping of budget reviews in future.  He explained that the Panel deliberately adopted a broad-brush stroke approach (general recommendations rather than detailed) with the intention of improving outcomes for residents, transparency and better value for money.

He expressed concerns that the process was highly compressed and suggested that the budget scrutiny process should begin at the end of the summer to enable engagement with officers and departments early on.  The process should be seen as adding value to departments and it was important that there was openness between officers and members.

A committee member expressed disappointment at the short timescales by which the Panel had to scrutinise the budget and highlighted that some issues required more detail, this was supported by another member.  Another member expressed that the focus on three areas of the budget during the process was useful and resulted in the proposals seen in the recommendations.  It was highlighted that this process had been slightly different in that it worked on the focused areas with departments to agree outcomes. 

The Committee thanked all officers involved particularly Melanie Ponomarenko, Policy Officer working on the Budget Scrutiny Review, the Chief Finance Officer and the Director of Corporate Resources.

RESOLVED that the Budget Scrutiny Recommendations be agreed;

i.          subject to the amended wording for the Looked After Children Recommendation no. 6:

“The Panel feels that considerable savings and a better service for clients could be achieved by the use of electronic means to transfer legal case work documents.  The Panel therefore recommends that officers collaborate with neighbouring local authorities to raise this issue with out local courts to identify a local solution.”

ii.         and that the following actions be delegated to directorates/ officers:

Voluntary Sector funding – the Committee requested more information about how viable bids were put together and expressed concerns that smaller voluntary organisations were being left out as larger organisations received much of the available funding. (Action 69.1)

Olympic Legacy – the Committee asked for a briefing explaining how the small grant of £60k would be allocated. (Action 69.2)