Issue - meetings

Members considered a report on proposed performance measures for future progress and delivery reports, and the proposed performance reporting framework for 2020/21.

The Senior Performance Officer introduced the report, and highlighted the following points:

·         The performance measures were reviewed on a yearly basis; officers engage with managers, who attend the Progress and Delivery Working Group.  This year Elected Members were given greater ownership of these measures.

This new process had been explained to members of Overview and Scrutiny Committee in June 2019, after work by the Progress and Delivery Working Group;

·         A series of meetings had been held with managers; this had been a robust process with an adopted approach of a balanced scorecard;

·         The Progress and Delivery Working Group had met in November 2019 to consider and feed into any new performance measures, as well as scrutinising targets;

·         Currently, the Progress and Delivery periods were as follows:

o   Period 1 covered 2 months of the year;

o   Period 2 covered 4 months of the year;

o   Periods 3 and 4 covered 3 months of the year.

This schedule did not allow for correct benchmarking, and did not give an accurate picture of performance.  The proposal in the report was to move to a system of four equal performance reporting periods, which was in line with standard Local Authority practice.

To make this possible quarterly performance reports would be taken to Management Team, an internal management meeting.  Members would be made aware through the Members’ Newsletter;

·         Performance reports would be brought to both the Prosperous Communities and Corporate Policy and Resources Committees, along with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee at the end of the second quarter of the municipal year, and then again at the end of that year.  This would allow for more detailed information; this approach had been acknowledged and supported by the Progress and Delivery Working Group.

Following this introduction, further comment was provided by Members:

·         Having equal quarters for reporting was a positive move;

·         It can be seen as frustrating that some measures have a ‘star’ rating whereas others have a percentage score;

·         There were members of the public who are dissatisfied with certain services of the authority but haven’t responded through feedback;

·         In the opinion of one Councillor, users of Council services were unlikely to give low ratings unless they were really dissatisfied.  A more interesting piece of feedback would be the ‘mid-rating’;

·         Some of the measures contained within the report were contingent on the consultation on the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan;

·         One Member expressed concern that more Members should have been involved, and that there wasn’t enough consultation.  This view was not supported by other Members that had attended, nor the officers that had carried out the work.

·         Other Members expressed that they had difficulty in understanding some of the performance measures; for example the home choices process that resulted in long term accommodation.  Sometimes there was room for simpler performance measures, and it is always best if measures can be understood by all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72