Issue - meetings

This report presents the collaboration risk register for its six-monthly review by the Joint Governance Committee (the Committee). The register was last presented to the Committee in March 2023. Since then, it has been updated by officers, including the assessment of scores and updates to mitigations.

Recommendation to Committee

1.              That the Committee reviews the collaboration risk register and the changes to the risk ratings suggested by officers and agrees any further changes.

2.              That the Committee ask officers to undertake a comprehensive review of the register, including risks; mitigations and scoring, with a view to making it more succinct and focused on the key threats to success of the collaboration.

Councillor Follows informed the Committee that it would discuss the structure of the Collaboration Risk Register (CRR) first. He advised that he felt the CRR had too many columns which made it quite confusing to review.  Councillor Follows felt that the target columns were unnecessary and should be removed.  Councillor Follows commented on the Risk Strategy and felt that 28 risks were too many.  He also advised that it would be helpful to add dates where risks were identified.

Councillor Follows invited Councillor Spence, the Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee to address the Committee. Councillor Spence agreed with Councillor Follows, advising that there are over 20 risks, and some of the risks could be merged. Councillor Peter Martin addressed the Committee, he also agreed with the comments, noting that the targets and further planned action columns were confusing, he agreed that one or two of the risks could be merged.

Councillor Bigmore addressed the Committee, and he commented on the difference between action priorities and risk appetite.  He also queried the ratings column and how a risk would move from high to medium.  Councillor Spencer informed the Committee that he had previously been a Chief Risk Officer.  He advised that the appetite was important but was happy with where the inherent residual risks were now.  Councillor Spencer queried the control measures which he felt were key to control.  He expressed that currently, it seemed to be more like a narrative than a risk register.

Councillor Follows suggested a task and finish group be formed for a short period to support officers with the structure and the deliverables for the CRR.  He suggested that the task group be formed of Councillors from both Guildford and Waverley and nominated himself, Councillors Kiehl, Bigmore, and Booker.  He also thought that it was important that Councillor Spence as the chair of the Waverley Audit and Risk Committee and Councillor Bellamy as chair of the Corporate Governance and Standards Committee should be co-opted into the task and finish group meetings.

Ian Doyle, Joint Strategic Director of Transformation and Governance addressed the Committee. He advised that he agreed with the comments and would welcome support from a task and finish group.  Councillor Kiehl addressed the Committee and queried whether it was a living document, who reviewed the register, and who else viewed the register.  Ian Doyle confirmed that it was the Joint Governance Committee that would view and be responsible for reviewing the CRR.

Moving to the CRR deliverables, Councillor Bigmore queried risk no.1 on the Register: the partnership lacks clear objectives.  He suggested that they had completed the initial work and that they were now out of mandate and queried what the next steps were.  Responding to Councillor Bigmore’s comments, Robin Taylor, Joint Executive Head of Organisational Development addressed the Committee.  He advised that his team was now working on the vision statement, project plan, and funding options.  Robin Taylor informed the Committee that several recommendations would be brought forward, including recommendations on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24

This report presents the collaboration risk register for its six-monthly review by the Joint Governance Committee (the Committee). The register was last presented to the Committee in March 2023. Since then, it has been updated by officers, including the assessment of scores and updates to mitigations.

Recommendation to Committee

1.              That the Committee reviews the collaboration risk register and the changes to the risk ratings suggested by officers and agrees any further changes.

2.              That the Committee ask officers to undertake a comprehensive review of the register, including risks; mitigations and scoring, with a view to making it more succinct and focused on the key threats to success of the collaboration.

The Joint Executive Head of Organisational Development, Robin Taylor, introduced the report and collaboration risk register, which had been updated to reflect the discussion at the 9 December 2022 meeting, updated assessment of scores and updates to mitigations, and proposed target risk scores as at January 2027.

The Committee asked that in future a separate table is provided to show which risks have been changed since the previous report, including by how much and the reason(s) for the change.

The Committee also asked that a timeframe be provided for further planned actions, and a commentary on how planned actions are expected to reduce the risk score to residual score.

The Committee noted that the Head of Finance considered that the financial thresholds for risk impact were appropriate in terms of budgets and reserves of the councils.

During their consideration of the Risk Register, the Committee requested a number of presentational changes to the Risk Register, including:

·         Column headings to be repeated on each page.

·         More care on use of colour to ensure that the risk register is accessible for all.

·         A column to be added to show related risks.

Capacity/Resources & Culture

The Committee discussed the risks relating to the capacity of JMT to manage across both councils (#8), and the impact of low staff morale on turnover with potential loss of knowledge and expertise (#10).

Noted that the Head of Service team was bigger than had previously been in place at Guildford and Waverley, so Heads of Service now had a smaller area of responsibility remit but across two councils. Some of what Heads of Service worked on was common to both councils, whilst some activity would be specific to one or the other council. It would take time to get used to working across two councils and finding a sustainable way of working, but a collaborative environment was not necessarily more stressful than an individual council, depending on the circumstances.

The restructure of the Business Support Team, comprising the Executive and Personal Assistants, to the JMT was almost finalised. The costs of this review had been included in the JMT savings already reported.

Joint working across the councils at the next managerial level down, or at the operational level, would be considered on a case-by-case basis after the elections, once the direction of travel of the collaboration had been confirmed. It was not intended that joint working would automatically cascade down, and there were considerable challenges to this approach as the councils had different ways of working.

Staff turnover varied by profession, and was impacted by other factors besides the collaboration. The collaboration presented a range of threats and opportunities for staff at all levels and these were recognised and being actively managed.

A joint staff survey had been commissioned via the Health & Safety Executive and the outcomes of that were awaited. Joint Governance Committee at September 2023 meeting to consider outcomes of the HSE Staff Survey.

Agreed that the Residual likelihood and impact of #22 (risk that employees  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11