Issue - meetings
MSG Performance Report April-June 2016
Meeting: 27/09/2016 - Commissioners' Decision Making Meeting (Item 6.3)
6.3 MSG Performance Report April-June 2016 PDF 175 KB
Additional documents:
- Appendix 1 - Project summary, item 6.3
PDF 202 KB
- Appendix 2 - RAG Status, item 6.3
PDF 68 KB
- Appendix 3 - Beneficiary data, item 6.3
PDF 489 KB
- Appendix 4 1 - Theme 1 summary, item 6.3
PDF 244 KB
- Appendix 4 2 - Theme 2 summary, item 6.3
PDF 243 KB
- Appendix 4 3 - Theme 3 summary, item 6.3
PDF 231 KB
- Appendix 4 4 - Theme 4 summary, item 6.3
PDF 215 KB
- Appendix 4 5 - Theme 5 summary, item 6.3
PDF 246 KB
- 6.3 MSG Red Amber Projects Update MASTER23 09 16, item 6.3
PDF 139 KB
- 6.3 MSG withdrawal - letter - Mile End Community Project, item 6.3
PDF 354 KB
Decision:
Steve Hill, Head of Benefits Services presented the report which informed Commissioners and Co-opted Members of the activities and services being delivered and their respective RAG ratings in the period April to June 2016. Two public submissions circulated at item 4 were considered as part of the discussion.
The Chair invited Councillor Mukit to comment on behalf of GSSC and he indicated that:
· the Subcommittee wish future reports to provide some high-level information about the support offered to organisations which are needed to improve their performance
· the subcommittee endorsed the proposed recommendations but also wished to receive information on measurable actions and cost analysis in future reports
Councillor Golds made a representation on behalf Green Candle Dance Company requesting that their case be re-examined.
Commissioner Caller noted:
· the requests made by GSSC
· that the process of monitoring performance and imposing sanctions was not being administered correctly.
· that for transparency, changes to targets and terms must be done through an open process and brought before Commissioners for approval.
· there was concern that details and arguments around changes to targets/criteria had not been provided. Commissioner Caller agreed that a written report should be received made containing a rationale for proposals relating to withdrawal of funding
· that changes affecting the criteria for release of grants may be taken forward only after Commissioners have been apprised and considered the matter.
· Commissioners had previously highlighted that it was necessary to report to them details of organisations receiving MSG which had ongoing performance issues. Therefore Commissioner Caller suggested that decisions to close underperforming projects reported be deferred pending a detailed report to be presented at a future meeting
The Chair endorsed Commissioner Caller’s approach noting any withdrawal of grant must be made through a transparent process.
Mayor Biggs noted that it had been inappropriate in the past to delegate powers to re-negotiate contracts to officers; therefore it was necessary to have an appropriate transparent protocol. To prevent further delays he suggested that Commissioners should take individual decisions on projects in danger consulting with the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee and that these decision be reported in public. Commissioner Knight also requested that GSSC be kept informed of matters.
Actions by, Steve Hill, Head of Benefits Service, Resources
Concerning the projects that reported performance issues, the following was noted:
- The Corporate Director Resources advised that grant to the Limehouse Project had been withheld due to outstanding issues around a property lease in accordance with agreed Commissioners’ directions. It was noted that there had been recent progress around resolving this matter.
- Councillor Saunders noted that Mile End Community Project was a small project and personal circumstances were responsible for its withdrawal from MSG rather than performance issues.
RESOLVED
1. That,
a. regarding the ongoing premises agreement at 3.3.1 of the report and noting the information provided verbally on Osmani Trust and Limehouse Project on their premises agreements, that funding should be released to these named projects
b. that discussions around premises agreements be continued with Children ... view the full decision text for item 6.3
Meeting: 20/09/2016 - Grants Scrutiny Sub-Committee (Item 5)
5 MSG Performance Report April-June 2016 PDF 175 KB
Additional documents:
- Appendix 1 - Project summary, item 5
PDF 202 KB
- Appendix 2 - RAG Status, item 5
PDF 68 KB
- Appendix 3 - Beneficiary data, item 5
PDF 489 KB
- Appendix 4 1 - Theme 1 summary, item 5
PDF 244 KB
- Appendix 4 2 - Theme 2 summary, item 5
PDF 243 KB
- Appendix 4 3 - Theme 3 summary, item 5
PDF 231 KB
- Appendix 4 4 - Theme 4 summary, item 5
PDF 215 KB
- Appendix 4 5 - Theme 5 summary, item 5
PDF 246 KB
Minutes:
The Sub-Committee received a report which outlined those activities and services being delivered and their respective RAG ratings in the period April to June 2016. The discussion on the report may be summarised as follows
The Sub-Committee:
· Whilst recognising the need to keep such reports succinct, asked that in future reports provide some high-level information about the support offered to organisations which are needed to improve their performance;
· Endorsed the proposed recommendations but also indicated that it wished to receive information on measurable actions and cost analysis in future reports;
· Noted that the performance issues with the Mile End Community Project had been impacted due to the long term sickness of a key officer and that the organisation had no strategies in place to address such a situation;
· Raised concerns about how funds of over £17,721 had apparently been released to Limehouse Project in error and sought assurances that lessons from this had been learnt to ensure this does not happen again;
· Noted that as the status of some projects were changing constantly due to information being provided, it would be useful for officers to provide updates to the Sub-Committee at the meeting so they can consider these as part of their deliberations; and
· Noted that an interim evaluation report of the MSG would be presented to the Sub-Committee in December.
RESOLVED
To endorse the proposed recommendations.