Agenda item

To receive the Portfolio Holder Annual Report from the Portfolio holder for corporate Management, Councillor Michael Braley.

(Verbal report and questions attached).

Further to consideration of the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Management’s written report at the previous meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 6th September 2011, and Members’ agreed themed questions to be put to the Portfolio Holder, Councillor Michael Braley, in respect of his Annual Report to the Committee, the following responses were provided: 

1.         The Worcestershire HUB was the subject of a recent scrutiny review. Has the HUB service subsequently improved? If so, to what extent?

The Committee was informed that statistics demonstrated that the performance of the Council’s Customer Service Centre was indeed improving, although it was noted that such statistical information was to be gathered differently in the future with the focus being placed on problem resolution rather than basic response times. It was noted that the overwhelming majority of the interaction with the Council was still face to face or over the telephone and reductions in the time that both groups were having to wait was very significant.

Members were advised that, since the HUB Scrutiny report, changes had been made to the way the Council handled enquiries. One significant change had been around the layout and operation of the main reception desk at the Town Hall. The configuration of the reception area did not, at present, lend itself to a satisfactory queuing system. Officers had experimented with the use of temporary barriers but generally found that self-regulating queues were the most successful means of managing customers. Customer privacy had not generated as many issues as might have been expected and the process of transferring customers to less public locations when appropriate was managed by Customer Services staff using their expertise and discretion. Staffing levels were also being managed on a more rational basis and in accordance with demonstrable need.

The Committee was surprised at the lack of use of email as a means of doing business with the Council. Officers conceded that online business had not increased to the extent that had been expected, as it seemed there was some customer resistance to this method of interaction. Members also discussed the options around access to the Council’s services over the telephone and whether there was any intention of introducing autodialing or an automated description of a customer’s place in a telephone queue.

The Portfolio Holder provided a brief update on the Worcestershire HUB. It was reported that the service had demonstrated a significant improvement during the last year with customer waiting times decreasing both over the telephone and face to face. A closure report on the scrutiny of the HUB was anticipated by the end of the calendar year.

2.        

(a)       What is the current position of the shared Property Services and what, if any, improvements have been made to address earlier concerns?

(b)       Would you consider it appropriate to follow Bromsgrove District Council in taking this service back in-house?

The Portfolio Holder explained that all partners were content with the shared service in respect of the valuation function being provided, with a greater pool of knowledge and expertise providing improved resilience.

The facilities management aspect of the service had initially been a cause for some concern but had improved following discussions involving all partners. Once again, improved resilience had been provided by a greater pool of staff, and Officers were now becoming clearer about their roles for the County and District Councils.

In response to the suggestion that Redditch should consider Bromsgrove’s example and take the service back in-house, it was noted that the two authorities were in quite different situations in that Redditch had a much wider property portfolio. It was made clear that the Portfolio Holder was minded to follow the course of action that he felt that was most appropriate for Redditch rather than being implacably tied to one model or another.

3.         Do you feel that maintenance of the Council’s website is adequately prioritised? If not, how should this be addressed?

It was acknowledged that the Council’s website had been inadequate in the past but that the site had been substantially improved in recent years. However, the process of updating the site and ensuring that it was customer-focussed continued, with improved search facilities being incorporated, the numbers of pages being reduced and a two-click service made available in many areas. It was highlighted that the individual services had responsibility for maintaining their areas of the site and that the quality of information on the site was regularly monitored.

Members were pleased to see that improvements to the site were continuing as the increasing importance of websites as a key determinant in how those outside the Council regarded the authority was appreciated. Given the growth in social media it was stressed that the Council would increasingly need to look to such means of communication. Officers were able to confirm that the Council used both Facebook and Twitter and provided newsfeeds.

It was identified that there were potential training needs for some Members in the use of the internet and social media. The Portfolio Holder pointed to recent Members’ training sessions on such areas and suggested that further opportunities might be available through Learndirect.

On behalf of the Committee, the Chair thanked Councillor Braley for his annual report and it was

RESOLVED that

the report be noted.