Agenda and minutes

There were apologies from Councillor Joss Bigmore, Councillor Jason Fenwick and Councillor John Ward.

There were no disclosures of interests declared.

To agree the minutes from the last meeting held on 1 November 2023.

With regards to the minutes of the previous meeting held on 1 November 2023.  Councillor Peter Martin sought clarification on a comment made by the Joint Chief Executive, Tom Horwood on page 3 of the minutes.  The Chair of the committee Councillor Paul Follows confirmed that the Joint Management Team were employed by Waverley and technically paid by Waverley, and this was recharged to Guildford via various methods. 

Ian Doyle, Strategic Director of Transformation and Governance advised the committee that equally not all the joint management team was 50/50 weighted in terms of costings.  He noted that some members of the team were more weighted in one borough than the other, i.e. the Strategic Director of Place was 60% Guildford and 40% Waverley.

The Committee agreed the minutes from the meeting held on 1 November 2023.

This report presents the revised collaboration risk register, as proposed by the Joint Governance Committee’s (the Committee’s) Task & finish Group, for its approval and six-monthly review by the Committee.

Recommendation to Committee

2.1       That the Committee approves the revised register suggested by the Task & Finish Group and officers and agrees any further changes.

2.2       That the Committee ask officers to prepare a heatmap for the 24 April 2024 Committee meeting. Showing changes in risks since this committee meeting.

2.3       It is recommended that a formalised process is adopted for Collaboration risk owners to provide updates on their respective risk mitigations. The recommended process being:

•        Collaboration risk owners should provide updates on their respective risk mitigations at a Joint Management Team (JMT) meeting at least three weeks before the next Committee meeting. The T&CP standing agenda item at JMT will be used to review the register and receive updates on the mitigations.

The Chair of the committee Councillor Paul Follows, thanked all the officers involved in the task group report, and for listening to the discussion and debates.  He also thanked all the members involved for their input.  The chair noted that the committee had before them the output from the group and the revised risk register. The chair welcomed any comments or feedback from the committee members.

Councillor Peter Martin addressed the committee and thanked members and officers for a very good piece of work and the excellent glossary of terms as it was very useful.  He raised a point regarding old risk no. 5 relating to the JMT resources which he noted was rated red.  Councillor Martin asked if the new risk no. 3 and parts of new risk no. 4 needed additional information regarding the JMT and staff resources not being apportioned fairly.

The chair confirmed that old risk no. 5 had been consolidated into new risk no. 3 which accounted for the resources of joint officers, which included the legal and financial aspects of the risk.  Councillor Martin sought further clarification on the location of old risk no 5 in the new risk register other than at a general level.  The chair explained that the current measures and the cost-sharing protocols were agreed upon and that there is a governance structure in place for setting out what is considered fair.  He advised that there were incidences where a 50/50 split was not a fair share (i.e. the Strategic Directo of Place).

The chair explained to the committee that going forward it would be the responsibility of the Joint Governance Committee to raise concerns when it did not believe things were fair, but such concerns should be supported with evidence and examples.  The chair noted that he was keen to avoid members saying things were not fair without any evidence.  The chair advised the committee that on occasion events could occur at either council that would shift the weighting and that was entirely reasonable.

Councillor Martin raised a query regarding old risk no. 8 regarding officer capacity during the transition, he noted that this was also previously rated red.  He felt that the closest risk in the new register was new risk no. 5, however, the new risk did not entirely capture the old risk and he felt that it had been downplayed.

The chair explained to the committee that where they had consolidated interrelated risks, the register now contained the top example of that risk and how it might impact the collaboration and the old risk no. 8 was very much incorporated.  The chair informed the committee that the old risk register contained too many duplications and overlapping risks, and only considered one aspect of the risk, whereas the new register considered the entire risk.

Councillor Martin raised a question regarding old risk no. 11, relating to the dominating priorities of one council, he noted that this was also rated red.  He explained that he was unsure of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.