Agenda item

Gill Morris, Client Officer – see recommendation

The vice-chairman took the chair as the Chairman had declared an interest and left the room.

Gill Morris, the Client Officer, introduced the report as circulated with the agenda.  She explained that the committee had received a presentation on the proposed governance arrangements for the Trust in June 2014 and at that stage a commitment was made to update the committee on governance arrangements after twelve months of operation. 

The report set out the governance arrangements for management of the contract and the internal governance arrangements that had been developed by the Trust.  In relation to management of the contract, there were three levels of governance: monthly performance meetings between the council’s client officer and the trust’s relationship manager.  These were informal meetings to discuss performance and identify any issues or risks for resolution or escalation; quarterly liaison groups meetings.  These meetings involved the council’s authorised officer (currently the deputy chief executive) and the client officer and the Trust’s chief executive and relationship manager.  This group agreed the annual development plan and monitored delivery of this plan through quarterly performance reports, also discussing any issues, challenges and potential risks.  These meetings also provided an opportunity to have early discussions about any major changes that the Trust wished to make; six monthly partnership board meetings.  These meetings included the council’s cabinet member healthy lifestyles and authorised officer and the Trust’s chief executive and trustee’s representative.  This group held strategic oversight of the contract, identifying and discussing strategic development opportunities and promoted partnership working and collaboration.  Both the liaison group and partnership could be supported by relevant officers from both partners and both were able to appoint sub-committees and task/finish groups if required.  The governance framework was subject to annual review to ensure that it continued to provide necessary assurances to both the council and the Trust.  In addition to the contract governance framework the Trust participated in the annual review of effectiveness of the council’s governance framework. The first assurance checklist had been completed after six months of operation and a commitment was made at the time to review it in six months; this will be undertaken in the coming weeks.  The cabinet member healthy lifestyles took an active part in the governance of the Trust and a member seminar was arranged in June for the Trust to brief all members on the first six months’ of operation.

Governance arrangements within the Trust had developed over the first 12 months of operation, to comply with the Companies Act and the UK Corporate Governance Code for Companies.  Good governance was also a key aspect of the Trust’s annual submission to the Charity Commission in line with the Charity Commission Guidance.  The following points were made: the Health & Safety Committee did not form part of the formal governance arrangements but reported up to the Board through the Finance and Audit Committee; and GO Shared Services had supported the Board, informally, to further develop the governance framework, but this support was now being delivered by an external organisation.

From the perspective of the commissioning team at the council, the framework was working well and having done a significant amount of work over the last 12 months to develop the framework, the Trust were now working to embed it and develop it further and as previously mentioned, the governance arrangements would be reviewed annually to ensure that they continued to work effectively. 

The vice-chairman thanked the client officer for her report, which he was in full support of the committee receiving. 

The following responses were given to questions from members of the committee;

·         The authorised officer would be advised of the suggestion voiced by a member of the committee that the partnership board should meet more regularly, on a  quarterly basis, with feedback from task groups and Trustees, given that the Trust were managing Council assets. 

·         The council had engaged consultants to assist in the development of a Tourism Strategy and the chief executive of the Trust was a member of the project team.  There was no tension between the council and the Trust on the issue of tourism but there was agreement that the council needed to be clear about what it wanted and how it would be delivered.  It was important to note that the council could not always take the lead and would have to work with other stakeholders in the town to deliver a strategy. 

·         The Audit Partnership Manager advised that the Charity Commission guidance rules and regulations set out what the Trust were required to do.  It was difficult to compare these rules against those that the council had to follow and as such he could not comment upon whether one was more stringent than the other.

Upon a vote it was unanimously

RESOLVED that the report be noted and comments relating to the governance arrangements of the Trust be fed back to the council’s authorised officer.