Agenda and minutes

Please note: This meeting may be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council's internet site - at the start of the meeting the Chair will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being filmed. The images and sound recording may be used for training purposes within the Council.

Generally the public seating areas are not filmed. However, by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to being filmed and to the possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or training purposes.

If you have any queries regarding this, please contact the Committee Clerk

at the meeting.

(Agenda Item 1)

                        None received

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgement of the public interest.

(Agenda Item 2)

None declared

A presentation by Cllr Sullaiman, the Executive Member for Organisational Development and Performance

OVERVIEW OF THE TECH REFRESH PROJECT – a presentation by the Executive Member for Organisational Development and Performance (Agenda Item 3) and EXECUTIVE MEMBER QUESTIONS (Agenda Item 4)

                        As it had not been possible to provide written answers ahead of the meeting these were laid round.  The Chair adjourned the meeting for 15 minutes to give Committee members the opportunity to read them.

                        The Executive Member for Organisational Development and Performance made a short presentation on the history of the Tech Refresh Project.  Lessons were learned from this project and recommendations made by the District Auditor were being implemented.

                        The Committee considered the Exec Member responses to written questions (attached).  In response to Members supplementary questions, the Committee was informed, amongst other things, that :

                        The original Tech Refresh budget was £9m.  Current expenditure to date was £19.6m.

                        The main reasons for the overspend were investigated by the District Auditor and the conclusions are set out in their report of January 06.

The E-Government Advisory Board and the Customer Services Working Group had been amalgamated.

                        Gartner carried out the original study into proposed IT enhancements in 2002.  Deloitte drew up the architecture and specification and Northgate carried out the implementation work.

                        The preparatory cost of the project was £150k, this was separate to the budget.

                        The Section 151 Officer (the Director of Finance) had satisfied himself that there was not a conflict of interest in using Deloitte’s on this project.

                        All aspects of the DA report were accepted and were being implemented.

It was confirmed that most of the officers who worked on the project were still employed.

                        Consultants were not able to commit or authorise payments on the project, on behalf of the Council.

                        The project was delayed in part due to procurement problems and because the hardware was robust but the software integration and networking raised problems.

                        The overspend became apparent in May 2003, but the need for major additional expenditure was identified in 2005.

Serious consideration was given to abandoning the project but due to  the risk to Council systems and the loss of potential benefit, it was decided to make additional resources available.

The Executive Member of ODPM was briefed on the Tech Refresh project when he took up his portfolio.

A Value for Money review will be commissioned in June 2006, once the poject had been completed.

Scrutiny Committee Members were disappointed that the written answers were not circulated in advance of the meeting and at the level of response.  During the course of questioning, further information was requested, including:

·                    A more detailed breakdown on project dates and member attendance at project meetings from December 2003.

·                    A copy of the original detailed budget for the project and detail on how additional was allocated and when.

·                    The identification of all contractors involved on the project and their role, in addition to Gartner, Deloitte and Northgate.

·                    Copy of the original report by Gartner, who proposed IT enhancements.

·                    Copy of the former Chief Executive and Director of Finance’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

The Executive Member for Organisational Development and Performance.

In accordance with Standing Order 32.6, no other business shall be considered.

This meeting has been reconvened to 9 March 2006 at 2.30pm

Please note that this meeting was reconvened for 9 March 2.30 at the Civic Centre, CR 1 & 2