Agenda item

Report of the Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development

The Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development presented the report.

A Member said that she felt that, as a new Member, she found the delivery plan clear, well formatted, and easy to understand.

A Member asked whether the reports back to the Committee would be judged against Key Performance Indicators in this document or the lower-level departmental performance indices. He was concerned that if the latter, this might obscure things from the Committee that had previously come before them. The Head of Human Resources advised the reporting will be against indicators in appendix 2. He set out the logic behind this and how it would operate.

A Member found the new Key Performance Indicators, for example in Housing and Leisure but he felt his point could be applied more widely, concerning as they did not go into enough depth nor have a wide enough scope. He also found some unoriginal.

A Member wanted more information from housing to be gathered. She also felt the benchmarks seemed unambitious and the report gave no contextual information on what they had been based, she feared they were simply set near to current benchmarks.

The Strategic Director of Communities advised that in the example given, regarding Housing complaints, the plan was scaled to work up to 100% over the plan period, this was also the case for most of the targets in the plan. Previous background information had also been presented to this committee through past monitoring reports.

The Member still felt that the first-year benchmarks were too low. Key Performance Indicators should be aspirational and benchmarked against peers.

A Member expressed concern with both the form and content of the report. He wanted to consult with the Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development again. Officers advised that the formal process of Scrutiny meant this committee needed to comment prior to consideration by Cabinet and then Council.

A member confirmed that the Labour Group were happy to put suggestions to the Cabinet.

The Portfolio Holder welcomed Members feedback so far and would work with Officers to reflect Scrutiny comments. The Portfolio Holder intended the Delivery Plan to be a costed and achievable document which synthesised the thoughts of Officers, the Alliance, and Opposition Members.

The Chair concurred that the Delivery Plan must be costed and targeted and success should be clearly defined and measurable.

A Member expressed concern that Key Performance Indicators may have unintended consequences which needed to be considered. He listed some ways which he felt that overly simplistic metrics may lead to undesirable outcomes. Then he asked what had happened to net-zero Council houses by 2030 and why had this been pushed back to 2050. He dismissed budgetary concerns as they could and should be allayed by central government grants. The removal of this target removed any incentives to raise this money and pursue the matter with appropriate zeal. Key Performance Indicator 9 regarding private rental tenants and minimal energy standards also seemed in his view both immeasurable and unambitious.

Expanding on the point of unsophisticated metrics and unforeseen outcomes, another Member felt that decreased crime rates would be a more sensible measure of success with regards to what was hoped to be achieved by CCTV. Another Member suggested that wider community cooperation was necessary to combat crime and should be reflected in the appropriate Key Performance Indicators however accepting that this was not fully in the Councils control.

A Member referred to the waste management Key Performance Indicators and requested more specificity around food waste recycling.

A Member expressed concern that a Key Performance Indicator which detailed how successful the Council had been at getting landlords to sign up to the housing charter had been omitted from the document.

The Chair felt the document was unclear and ought to be restructured. He felt that the drafting process was failing, and the final document would not achieve what it hoped to achieve.

Several Members felt that, with the critical importance of what was being discussed, it was imperative that the granular and complex nature of the discussion be accurately recorded in the minutes. No alternative measures or metrics were provided by the Committee.

The Chair thanked Members for their comments on the report which would be presented to the Cabinet on 19 September 2023.