Agenda item

Consider recommendation of Scrutiny Committee of  18 August 2016 regarding the review of the process in respect of the decision making in relation to the Great Tapestry of Scotland.  (Extract of Minute attached and report by Scrutiny Working Group.)

There had been circulated copies of a Minute extract from the Scrutiny Committee meeting of 18 August 2016 along with a copy of the Report of the Scrutiny Working Group.  This related to a request submitted to the Scrutiny Committee by Ettrick and Yarrow Community Council asking for a review of the process in respect of decision-making relating to the Great Tapestry of Scotland.  Councillor Mountford, Chairman of the Scrutiny Working Group, presented the report and answered Members’ questions and explained there needed to be a process for ensuring the recommendations, if approved, were implemented rather than just noted.  The Chief Executive undertook to present the recommendations to the Corporate Management Team for incorporation into project processes.  A suggestion was made that in the future to incorporate a portfolio holder for capital projects, however, the Chief Financial Officer said that the capital programme was simply a different way of spending money.  A further suggestion was made that it might be useful to refer to a publication entitled “The New Rational Manager (2013)” by Kepner et al, regarding project procedure and a structured process.  Reference was also made to Ward Advisory Groups which were within the Scheme of Administration but had not been activated.  Members thanked the Scrutiny Working Group for a well written report.  

DECISION

AGREED to endorse the recommendations from the Scrutiny Committee that:-

(a)        Where potential projects, such as the Great Tapestry, are at the stage of evolving from a conversation into a concept/idea, before proceeding to the project stage and into the capital plan, it would be helpful if all material conversations involving Officers and Members could be summarised and noted.  This would aid transparency and help to establish a more complete project record.

(b)       When officers are producing the first formal report to be considered by Members on a major project, they should include all appropriate information on the origin of all options which have been considered and any which have subsequently been dismissed. This is as much for a retrospective record as it is to inform the decision-making at the time.

(c)        Relevant analysis/research should be considered for inclusion as appendices in reports for projects like this or, if confidential, made available to Members privately for further scrutiny.

(d)       For any major project – to ensure good communications - regular informal briefings for all Members, along with the provision of electronic bulletins, would assist in keeping Members updated on progress and allow them to ask questions and also pass this information on to stakeholders, community groups, and members of the public.

(e)        Within the project management processes, the Council’s reputational risk should be included as a matter of routine in the Risk Register and the risk and mitigations section of committee reports should always take reputational risk into account and provide a commentary on that issue.

(f)        When considering locations as part of a major project, criteria being used to assess them should be put in order of priority (starting with the highest) and/or weighted.  Once a site has failed to meet one of the criteria, that site will normally no longer be assessed against the remaining criteria, and an explanation will be given to Members.