Minutes
Proposed venue: Conference Room 4B - Tŷ Hywel. View directions
Contact: Liz Jardine
No. | Item |
---|---|
Introductions, apologies and declarations of interest Minutes: Adrian Crompton, Director
of Assembly Business, sent his apologies. There were no declarations of
interest. |
|
Examine the effectiveness of the Assurance Framework components, through discussion identifying overall strengths and weaknesses Minutes: Claire Clancy welcomed
Hugh Widdis to the meeting, and thanked him for attending to provide
independent challenge and scrutiny on the assurance statements. As part of his
role as a member of the Audit and Risk Assurance Committee, Hugh’s involvement
added further assurance to the Commission on the governance statement process
and, in particular the quality of Directors’ assurance statements. The meeting would form a
key formal element of the process for gathering the assurances that Claire, as
Accounting Officer, needed for the production of the Governance Statement for
2016-17. The purpose was to ensure
that the draft Directorate Assurance Statements identified: aspects for each
Directorate that had strengthened; any concerns for this financial year; and development
areas for the next financial year. Copies of the statements
from the Directors, which drew upon the individual assurance statements from
each Service area, had been circulated prior to the meeting. The key outcomes for the
meeting were to agree: ·
action
to finalise the Assurance Statements; ·
items
of corporate significance for inclusion in the Governance Statement; and ·
improvements
to be made by the end of the financial year and beyond. A detailed note of the
discussion is at Annex A. |
|
Discussion of draft Directorate Assurance Statements, with each Director to lead by summarising: Minutes: Annex A Note of discussion on Governance
Statement 2016-17 Introduction Attendance
at the meeting is captured in the formal minutes. Discussion of draft Directorate
Assurance Statements The
Board scrutinised the Assurance Statements prepared by the Directors, having
considered the statements from their respective Service Heads. The
Directors outlined the key points from their statements. Resources Directorate Dave
Tosh highlighted the good progress made against the strategic goals, issues
that had been identified in the previous year, together with the challenges
ahead. There had been progress made
generally in the Directorate, but notable successes included : ·
the accounts, which had received
external recognition; ·
the Corporate Performance and
Annual reports showing sustained good performance across the board; ·
external awards received, such as
the Assembly’s success in the Stonewall awards; ·
employer related awards such as
family friendly award and IiP Gold, together with the staff survey that
evidenced the organisation listening and acting on what staff say. The
compliance and assurance work of Audit, HR and Finance had spread across the
organisation, as a result of the teams getting out to Service areas through HR
partnering and information governance support, for example, with the outcome
being improved PMDR completion rates, better financial management etc. A major
review of risk policy had resulted in better support of risk management. Dave
outlined the issues from the previous year and the progress made: ·
efficiency and effectiveness
report – which had been well received at PAC and Finance Committee and set the
direction for the organisation to be more focussed on efficiency and
effectiveness; ·
new KPIs – service based
indicators have been reviewed and improved, with the report being more useful
and easier to read; ·
managing VES – well managed and
audited process, that delivered the aim to enable restructuring and refocus of
resources, being achieved with some financial saving; ·
developing new Resources
Directorate – going forward it was necessary to ensure that resources were
there to do the work within the Directorate, but also to support the rest of
the organisation in their aims and priorities. Particular
areas of focus for the Directorate were: ·
to ensure understanding of
changing priorities across the organisation with sufficient flexibility to
respond to it and be an enabler to support it; ·
the project to replace the
finance system, which was going well; ·
the next stage of ICT strategy in
moving to ‘the cloud’ and the identification and mitigation of risks, such as
cyber security; ·
the events review, which would
result in significant changes, to make it more effective, efficient and
responsive to the way it needs to work in future; and ·
to ensure the new Chief Executive
was assured of the organisation’s governance and could demonstrate it in how it
operates and what it does. The
area that was most challenging was prioritisation, when so much was high
priority and ensuring the capacity to respond to the rapidly changing demands
and few periods of down time. It would be important to have the assurance that
the consequences of decisions made on priorities had been thoroughly
considered, not just within the Directorate but across all the
interdependencies. Hugh
Widdis recognised that this was a very high performance organisation but
challenged the Directorate to evidence whether there was staff engagement in
the areas of governance. Good measures
of engagement used on a frequent basis were the staff survey, regular formal
and informal staff meetings and further communication through staff notes and
publication of RADs, service plans and team meetings. As an example, the
Security review had sought to develop the culture and engagement to improve the
Service, through listening and involving staff in the re-design of outcomes,
enabling junior members to step up and embedding an HR person in the team to
work with them on culture and line management. Setting up a good culture
enabled governance information and activity to be disseminated. Governance
across the organisation was supported by ‘champions’ such as on MyView and
risk, and innovative ways of raising awareness, such as a governance quiz at
team meetings. The Wales Audit Office audit process had resulted in a
discounted fee due to improved internal processes. Commission Services Craig
Stephenson outlined the areas that had been strengthened over the period. Areas
that the Directorate had either been leading on or working with others were: ·
improved
cooperation between service areas, evidenced by TRS staff on integrated teams supporting
Committees, which has led to more focus on what their needs are and to help
develop bespoke services in future for individual Members;
also improved planning
and resource management around translation of papers; ·
staff
readiness to support other areas in organisation where there have been
shortages to make sure priorities are met, using their knowledge and expertise; ·
the
Events review where a core team had been developed from all affected areas
increasing ownership in all areas of project; ·
bilingual
working across organisation has improved again; and ·
use
of North Wales office staff in facilitating effective CPD for offsite staff,
contributing to better Member and staff engagement, plus
assisting in
interviewing for Members’ staff. Areas
for further development in the next financial year were: ·
the development of an information
dashboard in TRS and using it to inform decisions and revisiting KPIs as there
was more volume of work and demand on service since the start of the Fifth
Assembly; ·
delivery of the RoP project with
new software and training for staff and how it can be used to engage others; ·
the Private office staff changes
to support efficient working going forward, along with the potential changes
with the new Chief Executive; ·
the delivery of the outcome from
the Events Review to improve customer experience; and ·
the new Official Languages
Scheme, once approved where themes identified up to 2021 will bring about
challenges, especially in recruitment, and working with all service areas to
get that effectively and sensitively embedded. There
was a need to keep a watch on capacity issues and the impact of changes on
motivation and well being of staff, and put in place effective methods of
communication in teams to share information about and support the changes.
There was good understanding and consideration of the impacts of other teams on
the Service areas, and regular discussions between Managers and Heads to
highlight potential impacts and concerns that might affect capacity. Hugh
asked whether teams understood what was required of them in terms of knowledge
of changes and the role they play in governance. It was confirmed that there
was expertise and knowledge and the organisation was small enough to
communicate what was required. The organisation was effective at working within
processes, with templates and flow charts used where helpful to assist people
in knowing how to work. Staff know who to go to for advice or assistance, and
feel able to get help and the organisation was very collaborative in the way it
produces results, involving others as needed during the process. Hugh
also questioned the understanding between the Remuneration Board and the
ambitions and strategic direction of the Commission was reassured of the
relationship with the new Chair and strength of the Board. Assembly Business Directorate Standing
in for Adrian Crompton, Chris Warner highlighted the significant contribution
to the Commission strategic goals, particularly around the transition to the
Fifth Assembly, the flow of work and challenges, setting in place the
procedural side with Llywydd and reconfiguration of Assembly Business services
to support extra committees. There had
been growing appetite of committee chairs for committee public engagement as
well as external challenges, such as the Wales Bill, and enabling committees to
pursue their own agendas. Legal services had joined the Directorate enabling
quicker response to issues and providing further integration of services to
Members. Budget
management was being managed satisfactorily by individual staff within the
Directorate; risk management arrangements were different in each area, but
appropriate for the areas’ needs, and each provided challenge to the other on a
regular basis to ensure working effectively. There had been risks identified
around transition of the Remuneration Board and Standards Commissioner which
had been effectively managed and both were now in a strong position. New
elements of governance were in: the MySenedd Board, driving projects across the
organisation; the Chairs’ forum linking the Commission strategy with the work
in committees; and the Digital news and information taskforce, providing
external challenge. Work
had progressed on the priorities identified in the previous assurance
statements: ·
a large amount of work had been
done on capacity planning by service areas, using the capacity planning process
effectively to articulate the needs of the Directorate; ·
bilingual services had improved
and progress had been supported by the use of the language plans and close
working with Commission Services Directorate to ensure delivery of services to
Members. The
Commission goals and Brexit were weighty matters to contend with but in order to
continue to deliver excellence it was recognised that the priorities needed to
be very clear and there was a need to be firm about how resources are
allocated. Governance arrangements were essential to enable robust and rapid
responses to the changing political context and the volume of work involved.
There were three weekly governance meetings in Communications, for example, due
to the nature of the work and regular discussions between Service Heads about
risks and how to capture and manage them. The
public engagement strategy provided a framework for assurance, enabling mapping
of engagement and measuring of impact and an internal group was being
established to develop that work further. Challenges
that would impact on the ability to respond swiftly to the changing priorities
and that needed monitoring were the stress on staff expected to deliver
excellence all the time and having the right staff in place, with the right
skills. It was challenging to accomplish ground breaking work and mitigate all
the risks at the same time, so the approach to risk may need to adapt. Areas for future development Claire
Clancy invited the Management Board to consider areas that might be improved in
the way the organisation is run and its governance. The
RAD process, which was very thorough and provided assurance, was time
consuming, particularly where staff members needed assistance to complete the
form. They had been made as streamlined as possible, but further consideration
could be given to reducing the burden. Internal
communications could be better, for example around accommodation changes and
MySenedd; and it was recognised that short, concise messages were helpful to
keep people informed, and the informal meetings of small groups of staff with
the Chief Executive had also been particularly successful. Being
able to respond quickly when there was a need to draw in external help was
difficult. The future demands were going to be more challenging and it would be
necessary to plan early for the right resources. Hugh
Widdis advised that it was important to fight hard for budget and resources
when prioritisation and demand for resources became more acute. Next Steps Claire
was content that nothing had been raised that indicated any gaps in good
governance. Action
to finalise Assurance Statements Each Director would finalise their
statements, adding or redrafting as necessary, including sufficient examples
and ensuring properly evidence based. Claire
Clancy, together with the Governance team would then review the statements to
decide what should go into the Governance Statement, picking up on areas
emphasised in the Directors’ presentations. The
themes that had been highlighted of corporate significance to be included in
the Governance Statement were: ·
being proud of progress on
integration within Directorates and across Services; ·
sustaining the level and quality
of work in the face of the big challenges ahead; ·
effective and meaningful
prioritisation; ·
developing corporate planning to be
sustained and sophisticated, using staff capability and expertise in different
ways effectively; ·
being flexible in period of
uncertainty and change; ·
achieving balance between
striving for excellence and recognising stress factors, taking sensible decisions
on how this is managed; ·
delivering all the changes,
including Brexit. The
draft Governance Statement would be finalised by Claire in advance of her end
date. Kathryn Hughes would send confirmation to the Board of what needed to be
done with deadlines. Examine the effectiveness of the
Assurance Framework components The
Assurance Framework was a structured means of mapping the assurance processes
within the organisation and had been used by Heads of Service as an aide
memoire in the preparation of their individual statements, to help identify any
gaps, weaknesses or duplication in the assurances. Having it captured in this
way also provided a means of measuring performance against the Framework. The
Board reviewed the Framework and the RAG status of assurance map components and
suggested changes. ·
Equality Impact Assessments
should be added to the framework; ·
the external challenge exercise
under the third line of defence should be described in broader terms than
“exercise”; ·
there had been a big improvement
in the PMDR process, with staff having quality conversations, but it should
still be kept as amber due to completion times during the busy periods. The
next round of PMDRs should see that move towards green; ·
there was still further work to
do on programme and project governance with a lack of visibility at corporate
level but it had progressed a lot in the last 12 months. The status should be
changed to green; and ·
‘Service plan reviews’ should be
changed to ‘planning cycle’. The Board were content
that the status of those already marked green was appropriate. Summing up Thanks were given to
Kathryn Hughes and Gareth Watts for their work in preparing for the meeting, to
Hugh Widdis for his input to the process of challenge, and to Board members for
their contribution to the evidence gathering process. |
|
Next steps Minutes: Claire thanked everyone
for the work that had gone into preparing the next Governance Statement. The note of the meeting
would be circulated to Management Board, and outcomes would feed into the
Governance Statement. The note would also outline actions to be taken forward
and where further input was needed. |
|
Paper to note |