Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the Call-In meeting. 

Following the advice of the Principal Scrutiny Adviser, the Board agreed to release a copy of the following document marked ‘Not for Publication’ within the public domain:-

‘Delegated Decision Notification Form – Ref No D35700 – Sports of the Future- ICT Refresh – 15608’

RESOLVED – That the public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated exempt on the grounds that it is likely, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings, that if members of the public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information so designated as follows:-

Appendix 2 to the report i.e. the Business Case referred to in Minute 28 under the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and on the grounds that it contains commercially sensitive information and it was considered that the public interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information by reason of the fact that if disclosed could be prejudicial to the Authority.

To declare any personal/prejudicial interests for the purpose of Section 81(3) of the Local Government Act 2000 and paragraphs 8 to 12 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The following personal interest was declared:-

• Councillor C Beverley in view of his association with a close friend who works at Morley Leisure Centre

.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillor R Downes, Councillor R Harington and Councillor T Murray.

The Board were informed that Councillor B Chastney was a substitute for Councillor R Downes, Councillor G Driver for Councillor R Harington and Councillor M Dobson for Councillor T Murray.

Apologies for absence were also received on behalf of Councillor B Atha

(Minute 28 refers).

To consider a report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development.

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report regarding the procedural aspects of the call-in process.

Members were advised that the options available to the Board in respect of this particular called-in decision were:-

Option 1 – Release the decision for implementation.  Having reviewed the decision, the Scrutiny Board (City Development) could decide to release it for implementation.  If this option was chosen, the decision would be released for immediate implementation and the decision could not be called-in again.

Option 2 – Recommend that the decision be reconsidered.  Having reviewed the decision, the Scrutiny Board (City Development) could recommend to the Director of Resources and the Director of City Development that the decision be reconsidered.  If the Scrutiny Board (City Development) chose this option, a report would be submitted to the Director of Resources and the Director of City Development within 3 working days of this meeting.  The Director of Resources and the Director of City Development would reconsider the decision and would publish the outcome of their deliberations on the delegated decision system.  The decision could not be called-in again whether or not it was varied.

RESOLVED – That the report outlining the call-in procedures be noted.

In accordance with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, to review the attached delegated decision of the Director of Resources and Director of City Development in relation to Sports of the Future ICT Refresh – 15608.

Appendix 2 to the report is designated as exempt under Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4 (3).

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report, together with relevant background papers, relating to an Officer Delegated Decision (ref no: D35700) of the Director of Resources as follows:-

‘Provide the Sport and Active Recreation Service with:-

·  a replacement of the leisure management system

·  an upgrade of the data communications network where required

·  a minimum connection speed at all centres that do not meet the leisure management system operational requirements.

Re-assessment of priorities and realignment of funding had allowed the project to proceed sooner than anticipated, resulting in missing the July additions to the forward plan. The decision was required to be taken due to the Sport and Active Recreations Service’s current ICT systems reaching the end of the current contract at the end of February 2010’

Appendix 2 of the report i.e. the Business Case was designated as exempt under the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3). 

The decision had been called-in for review by Councillors B Atha, P Grahame, P Gruen, J Illingworth and A Lowe on the following grounds:-

“We the undersigned Members would like greater clarification regarding options considered during the contract allocation process relating to the Sport for the Future ICT refresh.  Further information was needed with regard to the cost-benefit analysis of the various options considered and the reasons why the final recommendation were agreed.”

Councillors P Grahame, J Illingworth and A Lowe attended the meeting to present evidence to the Board and respond to Members’ questions and comments.

The following Executive Member and officers were also in attendance:-

Councillor J Procter, Executive Member for Leisure

Ed Mylan, Chief Officer, Resources and Strategy, City Development

Andy Thomson, Business Relationship Manager, Resources

David Dixon, Senior IT Officer, Resources

Bhupinder Chana, Principal Finance Manager, Resources

The Board then questioned Councillors Grahame, Illingworth and Lowe, together with Councillor Procter and officers at length on the evidence submitted.

Some of the points raised by Councillor Grahame, Councillor Illingworth and Councillor Lowe were:-

• the acceptance by Members who had called in the decision of the necessity for a replacement of the leisure management system
• that they considered that the delegated decision process had not been transparent
• that they considered that the business case report was unclear as it suggested that the contract would be awarded to a single supplier and then went on to explain the competitive tendering process and the firms to be invited to tender
• that they were concerned that EU procurement rules could have been breached on this occasion
• a request for clarification of the project objectives and tendering process

In explaining the reasons for the decision, Councillor Procter and officers made the following comments:-

• the fact that the Leisure Flex system no longer supported the operation of the Sports Service as it was some 15 years old, and also from a procurement viewpoint, the department would need to run a tendering exercise before the current contract expired in 18 months time
• that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

In accordance with the Scrutiny Procedure Rules, to consider the Board’s formal conclusions and recommendation(s) arising from consideration of the Called-In decision.

Following consideration of evidence presented to them, the Board passed the following resolution:-

RESOLVED – That the Officer Delegated Decision D35700 be immediately released for implementation.

(The meeting concluded at 12.40pm)