Minutes:
The Interim Chief Executive (Mr Ade Adetosoye) attended the meeting to provide an update on the progress of the Transformation Board. He expressed his thanks to the Committee for their scrutiny, challenge, and support to date. He commenced by clarifying that he wished to speak about why transformation was necessary, what it was going to look like, and then to address some key questions that had previously been raised by the Sub-Committee.
It was noted that Bromley remained a commissioning council, but it was now the case that the challenge was greater than just commissioning. The Local Authority had to address growth in service demands, with diminishing funding from central government to meet these new demands. As such, there was a need to transform the way services were delivered. Through the Transformation Programme, services needed to be redesigned alongside the review of workstreams.
The Interim Chief Executive used the example of Housing, and how the various housing work streams were being looked at as part of the Transformation Programme. There was currently a funding gap of £10-£12m in the housing budget. Through the Transformation Board workstream relating to housing, different proposals would be worked up, ranging from building new homes, modular homes and reducing the number of homeless families through early intervention and identification.
Once proposals had been developed they would be presented to the relevant PDS Committees before being considered by the Executive. When ideas were approved, the commissioning of services would commence in line with established procedures.
Another aspect of the redesign phase was the review of the procurement processes to ensure that it provided clarity as well as a greater opportunity for elected Members to contribute at the service design stage.
In addition, the Interim Chief Executive highlighted that opportunities to jointly procure services with the CCG would be explored in greater detail to ensure efficiency. The Transformation workstream had within its principles the need to engage with residents, the use of technology, income generation and partnership working.
The Committee was informed that the Transformation Board met weekly and was chaired by the Interim Chief Executive. With respect to the Housing Transformation Programme, there were 10 to 12 officers currently working with him around this. The Interim Chief Executive stressed that it was necessary to move away from a ‘silo’ way of working. Officers needed time to work together to come up with longer term solutions.
He explained that once ideas and plans had been generated, the suggestions would be brought before PDS Committees. PDS Committees would continue to have a role to undertake in terms of scrutiny, challenge and support. In some cases, working groups would be established to explore new ideas and recommendations. After being scrutinised by the PDS Committees, plans would go to the Executive for decision.
The Chairman stressed the importance of PDS Committees being sighted on Gateway Zero and Gateway One reports. He felt that in this way, Member scrutiny would be useful and valid, especially in the case of service re-design. He stated that Members should be able to comment on embryonic ideas.
The Interim Chief Executive again stressed the importance of moving away from working in silos as well as learning from best practice at other Councils. For example, how were other local authorities managing their IT systems?
The Chairman of the ER&C PDS Committee made the observation that what may also be required was a ‘Gateway Minus1’ report. This could take the form of a brief two page document that outlined a plan of key matters to develop. The Interim Chief Executive welcomed the idea. It was agreed that if a ‘Gateway Minus 1’ report was drafted, it should be a Part 2 report.
The Chairman stated that if a modest re-design was planned, then in many cases this may not be sufficient. Fundamental changes may be required and well-trodden routes may not be best.
Discussion turned to the ‘Building a Better Bromley Document’, with a Member stating that it was ‘sketchy and institutional’. A discussion took place as to whether or not the document was sufficiently strong to provide enough guidance in terms of strategic policy. It was revealed that ‘BBB’ had expired at the end of December 2018. The Interim Chief Executive informed the Committee that the Leader of The Council had included this in his work plan in December 2018 and reassured the Committee that officers were working on this. He stressed that the key principles in the document were still relevant, but a new Corporate Plan would address some of the principles in the Transformation Programme.
The Chairman noted the transformation timeframe of three to four years. As the budget needed to be balanced quickly, he wondered if the schedule was sufficiently aggressive. The Interim Chief Executive explained that the Transformation Programme aligned with the four year budget strategy. It was not possible to deliver a four year plan in a year.
There was a discussion around the budget gap which had been identified as £32m. It was suggested that a ‘double the quantum’ approach be considered, and to aim for a savings target of £64m to allow for ‘headroom’ and to make provision for the possibility that not all of the transformation plans may be successful.
Reference was made to the ‘Ideas Lab’. The Interim Chief Executive said that this had drawn to his attention matters that he was not aware of, and at the moment 63 ideas were being considered. There was a discussion related to bonus schemes and their use in the private sector. Members felt that bonus schemes were a good idea. The Interim Chief Executive confirmed that there was not a bonus scheme in place, although vouchers could be used if required. He said that he wrote personally to staff whose ideas were being considered from the ‘Ideas Lab’ and in some cases the staff could be invited to join a working group to participate in the implementation of the idea.
The Interim Chief Executive stated that concerning the timeline for the Transformation Programme, he would be speaking to the Democratic Services Manager to determine and clarify the ‘mapping’ process.
A discussion took place concerning the quality of Member scrutiny at PDS meetings.
The Chairman concluded by stating that it was important to recognise and reward talented officers who delivered results.
RESOLVED that the update on the Transformation Programme is noted.