Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the call-in meeting

1  To highlight reports or appendices which officers have identified as containing exempt information, and where officers consider that the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information, for the reasons outlined in the report.

2  To consider whether or not to accept the officers recommendation in respect of the above information.

3  If so, to formally pass the following resolution:-

  RESOLVED – That the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following parts of the agenda designated as containing exempt information 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 press and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information, as follows:-

  No exempt items on this agenda.

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

  Appendix 1 to the report referred to in Minute No. 33.  Under the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and on the grounds that the appendix contains information which if disclosed to the public would, or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Council and/or proposed partner. It is therefore deemed in the public interest not to disclose such information

To identify items which have been admitted to the agenda by the Chair for consideration.

(The special circumstances shall be specified in the minutes.)

The Chair admitted to the agenda exempt supplementary information which supported the documentation outlined in Appendix 1 of the report prepared by the Director of Adult Social Services (Agenda Item 7) (Minute 33 refers)

Under the terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) and therefore as part of the private element of the meeting, the submission of further additional information was agreed later in the meeting (minute 33 refers)

To disclose or draw attention to any disclosable pecuniary interests for the purposes of Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011 and paragraphs 13-18 of the Members’ Code of Conduct.  Also to declare any other significant interests which the Member wishes to declare in the public interest, in accordance with paragraphs 19-20 of the Members’ Code of Conduct

There were no disclosable pecuniary and other interests declared at the meeting

To receive any apologies for absence and notification of substitutes.

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillor T Murray, Councillor J Walker, Sally Morgan and Joy Fisher

Notification had been received for Councillor P Grahame to substitute for Councillor T Murray and Councillor J McKenna to substitute for Councillor J Walker

To consider a report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Developent advising the Scrutiny Board on the procedural aspects of Calling In the decision

(report attached)

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

Members were advised of the process for reviewing the decision was as follows:

• Members who have requested the Call In invited to explain their concern/reason for Call In request
• Relevant Executive Board Member (supported by appropriate officers) asked to explain decision
• Further questioning from the Board as appropriate

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

Option 1 – Release the decision for implementation.  Having reviewed the decision, the Scrutiny Board (Health and Well-being and Adult Social Care) 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 (Health and Well-being and Adult

Social Care) may decide to recommend to the decision maker that the

decision be reconsidered.   This option requiring a report to be submitted to

the Executive Board, outlining the Scrutiny Board’s reasons for doing so

In the case of an Executive Board decision, the report of the Scrutiny Board

would be prepared within three working days of the Scrutiny Board meeting

and submitted to the Executive Board.   The Executive Board would

reconsider its decision at its next meeting and publish the outcome of its

deliberations within the minutes of the meeting.   Any subsequent decision would not be eligible for further ‘call in’, whether or not the decision was varied

Option 3 -Recommend that the decision be reconsidered and refer the matter to full Council if recommendation not accepted

This course of action would only apply if the Scrutiny Board determined that a

decision fell outside the Council’s Budget and Policy Framework and this

determination were confirmed by the Council’s Section 151 Officer (in relation

to the budget) or Monitoring Officer (in relation to other policies)

If, at the conclusion of this meeting, the Scrutiny Board forms an initial

determination that the decision in question should be challenged on the basis

of contravening the Budget and Policy Framework, then confirmation will subsequently be sought from the appropriate statutory officer 

RESOLVED – That the report outlining the process of the call-in meeting be noted

To consider the report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development presenting the background papers to the decision which has been Call In in accordance with the Council’s Constitution regarding a proposed ‘Shared service partnership with Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council to meet Adult Social Care technology requirements’

(report attached)

The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development submitted a report, together with background papers, relating to a review of a decision made by the Executive Board on 18^th July 2012 in relation to ‘Shared service partnership with Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council to meet Adult Social Care technology requirements’.

Appended to the report were copies of the following documents for the information/comment of the meeting:-

• Copy of the completed call-in request form
• Shared service partnership with Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council to meet Adult Social Care technology requirements – Report of the Director of Adult Social Services submitted to the Executive Board meeting held on 18^th July 2012
• Relevant extract of the Executive Board draft minutes of 18^th July 2012

  In addition to the above documents, a copy of exempt supplementary information which supported the documentation outlined in Appendix 1 of the report prepared by the Director of Adult Social Services was circulated for Members’ information.  The information was exempt under the same terms of Access to Information Procedure Rule 10.4(3) as Appendix 1 of the Executive Board report.  That is, on the grounds it contained information which if disclosed to the public would, or would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of the Council and/or proposed partner. It is therefore deemed in the public interest not to disclose such information.

The decision had been called-in for review by Councillors A Lamb, B Anderson, R Wood, C Fox and N Buckley on the following grounds:-

• The report failed to make reference of the history of this scheme, in particular the estimated costs set out in June 2010 which were almost £10m less than the total costs for this scheme overall
• There was a lack of clarity as to why the costs had inflated to such an extent and around the reasons for abandoning the joint procurement approach, especially given the increase in the project costs
• The outcomes that had now been delivered in the report did not seem proportional to the desired outcome of delivering a replacement system  for the ESCR system and that a like for like replacement that addressed the concerns raised in inspection reports would not have been as expensive as the option approved in the report
• The need for clarification as to whether the possibility of pursuing joint procurement and then adjusting to meet the different needs of the two departments had been considered
• The need for clarification of the aims of the project when initially developed in 2010 and the reasons why the costs had inflated to such an extent and whether or not details of these costs had been explained to elected members

Councillor A Lamb attended the meeting and was invited by the Chair to explain the reasons for ‘calling-in’ the decision.  In summary the main points raised were as follows:

• A brief history behind the management system covering the period 2003-2011
• Concerns about the Executive Board decision to enter into a partnership arrangements with Calderdale
• Concerns that an ‘in-house’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

In accordance with the Executive and Decision Making Procedure Rules, to consider the Board’s formal conclusions and recommendation(s) arising from the consideration of the called-in decision

Having considered the evidence presented Councillor Hussain proposed that the decision be released for implementation.  The Chair put this proposal to all voting members of the Board, which was subsequently agreed

RESOLVED – To release the decision for implementation.