Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 25 May 2023 be confirmed and signed by the Chair.

Councillor Pat Vaughan declared a Personal Interest with regard to the agenda item titled 'Portfolio Holder under Scrutiny - Our People and Resources'. His Granddaughter worked in the Finance Department of the City of Lincoln Council.

Councillor Ric Metcalfe, Portfolio Holder for Our People and Resources:

a.    presented a report to update on the Council’s current progress towards the Vision 2025 strategic plan, together with updates on each service area under the Portfolio Our People and Resources

b.    presented his report regarding activity and achievements within his portfolio, covering the following main areas:

·         The Council’s Priorities

Ø  Financial Sustainability

Ø  Revenues Shared Service

Ø  Service Performance

Ø  Welfare

Ø  Procurement

Ø  Property Services

Ø  Emergency Planning

Ø  Business Continuity

Ø  Risk Management

Ø  Corporate Health and Safety

Ø  Safety Assurance Team

Ø  Human Resources

Ø  Work Based Learning

Ø  Craft Apprenticeship Scheme

Ø  Corporate Communications and Media Relations

Ø  Civic and International Partnerships

·         Key Performance Results

Ø  Sickness levels

Ø  Measures performing below target

Ø  Measures performing above target

Ø  Measures performing within target boundary (acceptable performance)

·         Looking ahead

c.    thanked officers for their assistance with his portfolio

d.    invited committees questions and comments.

Question: Praised the work of the Civic Party and commented that the tours of the Guildhall were excellent. Could further work be done to promote the Guildhall?

Response: Gave thanks and appreciation to the Civic Party for their excellent work. The Guildhall was a huge asset to the Council and was beginning to get national recognition. The comments would be fed back to Officers and we would continue to look for ways to promote the Guildhall to residents and tourists.

Question: Commented that the work undertaken in relation to wellbeing was impressive and asked if a review of hybrid working had taken place to look at the impact that this had on staff both operationally and with regards to their wellbeing.
Response: Extensive staff consultation did take place post covid. It was not a one size fits all approach and opinions were mixed. Some more evaluation was needed to see how it was working in practice.

Question: Asked if the international partnerships could be further developed and promoted.
Response:  The international partnerships were not as active as they were previously. This would be fed back to officers to find out if there was scope for a review.

Question: Referred to the difficulties with recruitment and asked how this was being addressed.
Response: Recruitment continued to be an issue for Local Government, some vacancies were hard to fill. There was not an easy answer to address this. Discussions were taking place with neighbouring authorities to see if there was a way to collaborate. There was a long term issue with regard to pay levels and skills shortages. We would look to develop the apprenticeship scheme to concentrate on areas that were harder to recruit to.

Question: Asked if hybrid working was affecting the progress and work of the apprenticeships.
Response: Managers were required to evaluate whether a post was appropriate for homeworking and if it was in the best interest of the Council. Therefore, adverse effects on apprenticeships were not expected as the posts would be considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

Michelle Hoyles, Business Manager Corporate Policy and Transformation:

a.    presented a report to update Performance Scrutiny Committee on the Councils approach to refreshing the membership of the Lincoln Citizens’ Panel

b.    advised that the membership of the Lincoln Citizens’ Panel was most recently reviewed in 2018, and currently contained 722 members. Of those members 304 continued to actively participate in Panel activities. Currently there was 418 Panel members who had been inactive for more than twelve months

c.    explained that the review would consist of removing from the Panel all members who had been inactive for more than twelve months and would seek to recruit a further 700 new panel members in a way that reflected the current make up of the City based on the latest Census updates.

d.    further explained that the Council would procure a third party to undertake the recruitment on its behalf. This approach was taken for the previous Panel refresh in 2018

e.    proposed that, in future it would be beneficial for the Citizens’ Panel to be reviewed and refreshed at more frequent intervals, with a proportional change of membership either annually or every two years.

f.     referred to paragraph 2.5 of the report and highlighted the other options for service feedback and business intelligence to compliment the views of the Citizen Panel as a wide suite of performance an feedback measures that would be explored

g.    invited committees questions and comments:

Question: Referred to the harder to reach demographics of younger people and 30-40 year olds and asked if there were different ways to engage with these demographics.
Response: The current Citizens Panel was skewed in favour of the older age brackets, it was important to achieve a balance and get a full spread of the demographics. We would be working with a third party to recruit to the panel and we would also consider other options of how we could engage people.

Question: Asked what topics the Citizens Panel were consulted on.
Response: The topics were varied, and we tried to focus on key areas. There were also some standard questions. The most recent topics covered were parking and climate.

Question: Asked how many members of the panel were asked to participate each time.
Response: We needed to ask the panel to participate regularly to keep them actively engaged. We would ask all 1000 members unless it was for a specific area such as ward. There was a buffer as we know that some people would not respond to the surveys.

Question: Asked how many responses were received from the surveys.
Response: The most recent survey received 240 responses.

Question: Asked how surveys were sent to members of the panel.
Response: They were internet surveys, but paper surveys could also be sent.

Question: Asked what characteristics would be considered when selecting members for the panel.
Response: It was important that the range of members reflected the current makeup of the City. We were focussed primarily on age and locations.

Question: Asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

Claire Turner, Democratic Services Officer:

a.    presented the draft work programme for 2023/24 as detailed at Appendix A of her report

b.    advised that the work programme for the Performance Scrutiny Committee was put forward annually for approval by Council; the work programme was then regularly updated throughout the year in consultation with the Performance Scrutiny Committee and its Chair

c.    reported that items had been scheduled in accordance with the existing work programme and officers’ guidance regarding the meetings at which the most up-to-date information could be reported to the committee; the work programme also included the list of portfolio holders under scrutiny

d.    requested any relevant comments or changes to the proposed work programme for 2023/24.

The Committee discussed the content of the work programme and it was suggested that the Portfolio Holder under Scrutiny for Customer Experience and Review be moved from December to September due to a lighter agenda in September 2023.

RESOLVED that:

1.    The Portfolio Holder Under Scrutiny for Customer Service and Review be moved to the meeting due to be held on 28 September 2023.

2.    The work programme 2023/24 be agreed subject to the above change.