| AU.419 | Councillor Rothwell declared a personal interest in Minute AU. - Financial and Performance Monitoring as he was a tenant of Six Town Housing and a Governor at a Bury school. |
| AU.420 | There were no members of the public present to ask questions at the meeting. |
| AU.421 | Further to Minute AU.291 of the meeting of the Audit Committee on 7 December 2010, the Executive Director of Adult Care Services, Pat Jones-Greenhalgh attended the meeting to report on the work being carried out within Adult Care Services to reduce the levels of sickness absence within the department.
Pat explained that the issue of sickness absence within Adult Care Services was something that was monitored very closely at a senior level and was discussed at Management Board meetings regularly.
Kat Sowden, Head of Workforce Modernisation, Adult Care Services, presented a report setting out the work being carried out across Adult Care Services to reduce the amount of sickness absence.
The Adult Care Services recorded sickness absence was significantly higher than other departments (17.9 days lost per full time employee within ACS compared to 11.04 days as a Council average).
The report gave details of both long term and frequent short term absences across the department and a breakdown of each of the sections within the department and their sickness levels. It was explained that Adult Care Services utilised the authority wide Managing Attendance Policy which included return to work meetings following all absences and stage meetings to manage sickness absence. The Council also records all sickness absence on the Trent system which allows instant input and access to sickness absence records and can provide summary information from individuals to teams or whole departments.
Kat explained that long term absence was defined as any absence which was 20 weeks or more in duration. The Council writes to employees at 50 days and 100 days of absence. At 100 days the Council will ask the employee to make decisions regarding their future employment. Employees are also referred to Occupational Health once they have been absent for 6 weeks.
On return to work following long term sickness absence, if recommended by Occupational Health, the Employee is also given the opportunity to return to work on a phased basis building up to their full working hours over a 4 week timescale.
It was explained that Frequent Short Term Absence was defined as more than 3 absences in a rolling 12 month period. Trigger stages are applied to employees with 3 or more absences within a 12 month period. Employees who reach stage 3 and have not achieved the required improvement in their attendance can be considered for termination of their employment.
All managers and supervisors receive training on sickness absence management and ad hoc refresher training.
The department promotes healthy living to all employees and has preventative measures in place such as physiotherapy and mental health related treatments where recommended by Occupational Health.
It was also reported that the Department carried out bespoke interventions with particular teams if it was felt that the sickness absence levels within that particular team were consistently high. This could include regular team meetings to discuss the implications of absences within the team and any other issues which may be leading to regular absences, as well as strategies to reduce the number of absences.
Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and comment on the information provided and the following points were raised:-
• Mr Gremson explained that he was aware that the Authority had to work to national and local agreements when implementing the sickness policies but asked whether there should be earlier interventions in place in relation to long term sickness.
Kat explained that case work would commence at 6 weeks, the 20 week stage was the point at where employees would be asked to consider their future employment options.
• Mr Gremson also asked if any work could be carried out with domicillary staff as this seemed to be an area with a high level of sickness.
It was explained that different training methods were always being looked at. Some domicillary staff were reluctant to visit their clients if they were ill themselves for fear of spreading viruses etc. It was an issue that the department were aware of and were working on. The department also carried out work where employees were in stressful situations to offer as much support as possible and improve positivity within the workplace.
• Councillor Harris asked whether there were any incentives that could be offered to employees who maintained 100% record.
It was explained that the Council had, in the past held a draw for all employees who had maintained 100% attendance over a 12 month period with the prize being a digital camera.
It was also reported that as the Council had a number of family friendly policies in place such as flexible working and job share opportunities which allowed employees to work around their family lives where possible. It was also felt that it should be for the employee to take responsibility for their attendance with support from the employers.
• Councillor O’Hanlon asked what type of prevention work was undertaken in relation to mental health issues.
It was explained that managers and supervisors were trained to spot indicators relating to mental health issues, the authority carried out annual assessments and regular one to one meetings with staff in between the assessments. There was counselling available in-house through Occupational Health and the Council also buys into the IACS (Inter-Authority Counselling Scheme) which was a shared scheme across a number of authorities for staff working in a care environment.
|
| AU.422 | Mike Owen the Director of Finance and E-Government gave a presentation on the Council’s Annual Budget - Setting processes.
The presentation was separated into the following elements:-
•Background to the Council’s annual expenditure and sources of funding.
•Details of the Local Government Settlement with comparative figures locally and nationally.
•Budgetary challenges
•The Budget strategy
•The Budget formula
•Budgetary Assumptions
•Projected budget deficits
•Income from the Council Tax
•Budget Monitoring
It was reported that the budget was due be discussed by the Council at its meeting on 23 February. The options had been made public during December 2010 and January 2011 and a consultation event was held in January to allow for Member and public input.
|
| AU.423 | The Director of Finance and E-Government presented a report updating Members of the Committee on the Authority’s financial and performance position in line with the Committee’s Statement of Purpose to ‘provide
independent scrutiny of the Authority’s financial and non-financial performance to the extent that it affects the Authority’s exposure to risk and weakens the control environment’.
The report indicated that the Authority was projecting an underspending of £0.622m for the year based on spending and income information as at 31 December 2010.
The report also gave a summary of performance during quarter three of the 2010/2011 financial year. The table set out at 4.1 of the report highlighted areas of concern which were classed as “double-red” (performing worse than at the end of 2009/2010 and not forecast to achieve current year target, or are in the Local Area Agreement or Bury Plan and not forecast to meet targets).
Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comment on the contents of the report.
|
| AU.425 | Steve Kenyon presented a report submitted by the Director of Finance and E-Government explaining the requirement of councils to publish details of all expenditure over £500.
It was explained that expenditure is defined as including invoice payments, grant payments, expense payments and other transactions. Certain payments are exempt from the scheme such as salary payments and severance payments.
Appended to the report was the guidance for redacting data and the process that the Council has adopted for publishing the information.
•Councillor O’Hanlon stated that he had noted that some suppliers were paid a number of times in the same month using different invoices and asked whether this was something that could be reviewed.
It was explained that the Council endeavoured to make payments within 30 days to all suppliers and where possible within 10 days to local suppliers which may have shown up as more than one payment to local suppliers in a one month period.
•Councillor Matthews reported that Nottingham Council had refused to publish their expenditure and to date nothing had been done about this.
Steve Kenyon reported that the Greater Manchester Treasurers Group had agreed that all of the Greater Manchester Authorities would publish their expenditure and the scheme that would be used.
It was also explained that in the future the Council would be required to provide more detailed information on expenditure relating to grants and payments, salaries over £58,000, contracts and tenders and Councillor Allowances.
|
| AU.426 | The Head of Strategic Finance presented a report providing Members with a quarterly update on the Annual Governance Statement which had been approved by the Audit Committee at its meeting on 22 June 2010.
The report gave an update on the continuous monitoring that was carried out and highlighted any relevant issues with regards to Risk Management, Business Continuity, Budget Monitoring, the work of Internal Audit, the work of the Governance Panel, Gifts and Hospitality, the Transformation Strategy and Sickness Absence.
It was reported that the Member level Corporate Risk Management Group had last met on 10 January 2011 and the Officer Group on 25 January 2011. The Corporate Risk Register was provided within the report and gave details of the level of risk and the direction of travel.
CIPFA’s Better Governance Forum had produced a top 10 list of risks for Audit Committees to consider, the list was provided at Appendix 1 to the report.
It was explained that the Council’s deadline of 31 December for completion of the business continuity database had not been achieved. The database was 69% complete and the Risk Manager was targeting areas where the plans remained uncompleted.
The Governance Panel had met nine times since its inception in November 2008 the most recent being 27 January 2011.
The transformation Strategy was currently at the consultation period. The Committee would continue to receive regular updates on the Strategy and its progress.
It was reported that following a request from the Audit Committee at its previous meeting, the Sickness Absence information had now been included as part of the Governance Update and would continue to be reported on a quarterly basis.
Members were given the opportunity to ask questions and comment on the contents of the report, the following points were raised:
• Councillor O’Hanlon referred to the Transformation Strategy and asked if the strategy was not agreed by the Councillors was there was a ‘Plan B’.
It was reported that there was no alternative option to the Transformation Strategy.
• Mr Gremson asked whether there was a requirement for an overall Council Strategy in relation to sickness levels across the authority.
It was explained that there was a corporate approach to sickness absence and that this could be reported to the Committee by the Director of Personnel.
|
| AU.427 | The Head of Strategic Finance presented a report giving Members an update on the system to declare, monitor and report gifts and hospitality offered to and received by staff.
The report set out a summary of declarations made for the period October 2010 to January 2011.
Paragraph 2.6 of the report included an analysis of the declarations by Department of the Council and gave the lowest, highest and the average value of the gifts or hospitality.
|
| AU.428 | Heather Garrett, representing KPMG presented the Committee with the Progress Statement for the External Audit Programme 2010/2011. |
| AU.429 | Heather Garrett, representing KPMG presented a report summarising the results of the work undertaken on the certification of the Council’s 2009/2010 grant claims and returns.
KPMG had certified eight grants with a total value of £127m. Of the eight grants, five were issued unqualified certificates and the remaining three received qualifications.
One recommendation was given from KPMG and this would be followed up during the coming year’s audit.
|
| AU.430 | Heather Garrett, representing KPMG presented the Committee with a report setting out the way in which KPMG will deliver their audit work in relation to Use of Resources and Financial Statements for Bury Council for the 2010/2011 financial year.
Set out in the report were the key financial statement risks which had been identified for 2010/2011. The high audit risks were reported as:-
• Implementation of IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards);
• Financial Standing/MTFP (Medium Term Financial Plan) following the CSR;
• Asset Values; and
• Equal Pay provision and treatment
|