This Council has a well-earned reputation for being effective and efficient, as a peer review carried out two years ago confirmed. Its officers are hard-working and enterprising. The Liberal Democrat Leader and Cabinet have decided to spend £50,000 on management consultants to decide "how the Council could best focus on delivering its priorities". This Council is disappointed that the resources of the council's senior management are not being used to this purpose, and regards the decision as indicative of a lack of leadership and purpose, and calls for the money to be re-allocated to delivery of front-line services.
Decision:
The following Motion was LOST:
This Council has a well-earned reputation for being effective and efficient, as a peer review carried out two years ago confirmed. Its officers are hard-working and enterprising. The Liberal Democrat Leader and Cabinet have decided to spend £50,000 on management consultants to decide "how the Council could best focus on delivering its priorities". This Council is disappointed that the resources of the council's senior management are not being used to this purpose, and regards the decision as indicative of a lack of leadership and purpose, and calls for the money to be re-allocated to delivery of front-line services.
Minutes:
Councillor Grenville Chamberlain moved the following motion as set out in the agenda:-
“This Council has a well-earned reputation for being effective and efficient, as a peer review carried out two years ago confirmed. Its officers are hard-working and enterprising. The Liberal Democrat Leader and Cabinet have decided to spend £50,000 on management consultants to decide "how the Council could best focus on delivering its priorities". This Council is disappointed that the resources of the council's senior management are not being used to this purpose, and regards the decision as indicative of a lack of leadership and purpose, and calls for the money to be re-allocated to delivery of front-line services.”
Councillor Chamberlain spoke in support of his motion and expressed the view that the Chief Executive was ably equipped to carry out the review being undertaken. He indicated that members of his group would also be willing to assist with the review in order to allow the £50,000 to be spent on service delivery rather than employment of management consultants.
Councillor Graham Cone seconded the motion.
During discussion:-
· Councillor Neil Gough commented that the peer review had highlighted the need to provide clarity on a number of areas, including setting the new political and managerial leadership style and direction; partnership working models and commercialisation. He indicated that the review would focus on effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery and how to maximise the potential of the organisation and was being undertaken with staff involvement and engagement. Councillor Gough acknowledged that the Council had a talented and hard working officer group but felt that the consultants would be able to bring a perspective on what was happening in the broader world of organisational change and to provide an evidence base to support decisions being taken to prepare the organisation for the challenges in the next 5 to10 years. He argued that the review represented an investment, not a cost, in ensuring that the right experience was available to help craft an appropriate way forward to maximise the value and effectiveness of the organisation.
· Councillor Tom Bygott was sceptical about the value consultants would add, noting that consultants used information gathered from within the organisation and this could be done internally. Councillor Bygott believed that the Chief Executive should lead the review, that councillors should set the vision for the organisation and that it was not necessary to spend money on engaging consultants.
· Councillor Nick Wright supported the earlier comments of Councillor Bygott.
· Councillor Philippa Hart pointed out that the Peer Review had been conducted two years earlier and that there had been no follow up visit. She was concerned that a number of the Peer Review recommendations had not been addressed, including defining what commercialisation meant for the Council, its strategy and approach to shared services and its role in shaping growth in the area. The consultants had been engaged to enable an evidence base to be established to underpin future decisions on the Council’s future. Councillor Hart also emphasised that staff were being involved in the process, noting that a number of staff workshops had already taken place.
· Councillor Peter Topping asked whether the Council’s leadership had considered asking the LGA to support the review which, he argued, would have been a more cost effective solution and bearing in mind also that the LGA had undertaken the Peer Review. He questioned the value the consultants could add to the process and was concerned at spending £50,000 on their engagement.
· Councillor Howell was concerned that the Council could no longer afford to provide Community Chest grant funding to parish councils but could commission consultants at a cost of £50,000.
· Councillor Bridget Smith, the Leader of the Council, confirmed that the Council had consulted with the LGA with regard to the review. She expressed the view that there had been little change at the Council for the last 10 years and referred to the importance of having an independent review of the scope for doing things better. The Leader emphasised the importance placed on working in partnership with staff and highlighted the extent of engagement already under way. She also reported that the opportunity was being taken to engage with other local authorities to see if there were any examples of best practice or learning that the Council could take on board.
· Councillor Heather Williams acknowledged the importance of maintaining high staff morale and asked whether there were any mechanisms for staff to give confidential feedback. In response, the Chief Executive confirmed that there was an opportunity for staff to submit comments on a non-attributable basis. She commented that the review presented a chance for the Council to look at how it could be fit for the future and that it was important to involve staff in that journey.
· Councillor Graham Cone, as the seconder of the motion, indicated his confidence in the ability of the Council’s senior management team to conduct the review without recourse to consultants and argued that the money could be better spent.
· Councillor Chamberlain, in summing up, referred to earlier comments suggesting that an aim of the review was to provide clarity on leadership and strategic direction and maintained that this was the role of the leadership working with the Chief Executive. He also disputed any suggestion that the Council had not played an active role in supporting economic development, commenting that South Cambridgeshire was a world leader in the development of successful businesses. Councillor Chamberlain concluded by calling for the £50,000 to be returned to front line services.
Upon being put to the vote, votes were cast as follows:-
In favour (11):
Councillors Ruth Betson, Dr. Shrobona Bhattacharya, Tom Bygott, Grenville Chamberlain, Graham Cone, Sue Ellington, Mark Howell, Peter Topping, Bunty Waters, Heather Williams and Nick Wright.
Against (27):
Councillors Philip Allen, Henry Batchelor, John Batchelor, Anna Bradnam, Dr. Martin Cahn, Sarah Cheung Johnson, Dr. Claire Daunton, Dr. Douglas de Lacey, Claire Delderfield, Peter Fane, Neil Gough, Philippa Hart, Geoff Harvey, Dr. Tumi Hawkins, Pippa Heylings, Steve Hunt, Alex Malyon, Tony Mason, Peter McDonald, Brian Milnes, Judith Rippeth, Nick Sample, Bridget Smith, Hazel Smith, Ian Sollom, John Williams, Eileen Wilson.
Abstain (0)
The motion was accordingly declared lost.