As reported to 21 January 1999 Partnership meeting- Report from Chair
PARTNERSHIP ORGANISATION
Organisational Issues      Draft 1999/2000 budget

  1. This seeks to take forward some of the issues raised at the Awayday in November, and to suggest and seek comments on how we move forward. Two comments were received on the issue which I have sought to take into account. I have tried to set out in Table.1 under each heading a suggested direction on the left - and also flag up the issues that are then raised on the right. These will in turn influence aspects of the 1999 Plan. Do please let me have your comments.
  2. The proposals have also to be seen in the context of evolving an agreed budget for the 1999/2000 year (for the £320,000 + allocation). Table 2 provides an initial attempt to start to set out such a budget. The figures are necessarily still flexible at this stage, but are I hope useful in suggesting how we might progress.
  1. Following discussion with the Council officers I have also tried to set the budget out in a way which indicates a "joined up" approach. The proposed Integration of the relevant parts of Education & Social Services from 1 September 1999 (see separate report to 27 January Joint Committee) will also impact on this, with many areas needing further discussion once the principles are agreed (not least on grants etc). Do therefore please treat the figures as indicative.
  1. Within the headline budget figures there will also be a need to work up more detailed protocols related to the operation of the budget (eg how to have a simple expense claim form which does not add excessive bureaucracy).
  1. Whilst the main discussion today will need to be on the proposed Plan, I do hope it will be possible to have at least a short discussion on this report. Subject to your comments I would envisage continuing to work up these proposals to bring a more detailed report to the next Partnership meeting on 25 February. It would also be helpful if you wanted to nominate a few other people prepared to work with me & the Vice Chairs on this over the coming weeks.

RECOMMENDATION:

  1. That the organisational development proposals set out at Table.1 be endorsed (subject to any comments) as the basis for the Bristol Partnership, and that a further report be brought back to the next Partnership meeting.
  1. That the outline budget set out at Table.2 be endorsed (subject to any comments) as the basis of the 1999/2000 year, with a further report to the next Partnership meeting.
  2. That the Partnership consider nominating others to work with Dave, Patricia & Steve on these two issues over the coming weeks.

Dave Sutton, Chair
 ORGANISATIONAL ISSUES TABLE.1
1. We need to formalise & improve on the need to consult & involve the wider early years & childcare constituency.
It is therefore suggested we need to: Issues for consideration:
Developing regular open Forums - building on the existing seminars & Annual Conferences.
How do we keep flexible? To ensure Early Years & Childcare interests hold together? Role for CHYPS? ECHO?
Consider how we secure more representation onto the Partnership for Local Area Network reps & more parents/ carers & employer representatives.
How soon do we want to do? Who stands down from Partnership membership? Reduce councillors? Do we remove local "voluntary sector experts" ? (moving them to a formal advisory role as per Council officers).
Ensure a regular Newsletter (as well as maintaining web site).
How do we make sure it happens regularly? Who should have Editorial responsibility?
Review & clarify the role of the Working Groups & their memberships.
How do we ensure a consistent, cross sector, attendance? If they are "closed" meetings how do we find out what they are doing?

2. We need to better define the relationship of Council officers and "voluntary sector experts" to the Partnership to ensure balance at all levels.

It is therefore suggested we need to: Issues for consideration:
Move towards commissioning preferred agents and developing Service Level Agreements (ie. Moving away from Annual Grant applications) - including Best Value monitoring & review arrangements - for the "voluntary sector experts". (APN/ BAND/ OSCA/ PSLA/ Child Minding Network/ etc).
How to take forward? (VOSCUR?) & resolve differences in views/ priorities? To link funding to Plan & Partnership? To promote informal networking through a single building location? How to ensure they are delivering? Is a tendering process appropriate?
Note that the Council is clarifying its internal structure and the new job descriptions will help transparency and clarity of relationship to the Partnership.
Where do Councillors best fit in? How do we develop a formal role for Partnership to comment on relevant Council activities? Do we need a more detailed statement on relationship?
Establish rules of thumb for Local Area Networks/ Working Groups and Partnerships to ensure balance & inclusion at all levels.
What should the balance be between Council officers," voluntary sector experts" and parents/ providers? Is this necessary?
prioritise expenses (within capped budgets) to promote participation of a) parents and b) providers at Partnership and Local Area Network levels.
How do we create a simple system which keeps the auditors happy?
set out clear roles for officers, advisors and working groups.
Link to relevant job descriptions. Retaining flexibility/ diversity?

3. That the Partnership needs to have an identity distinct from the Council whilst also recognising working closely with the Council

It is therefore suggested we need to: Issues for consideration:
explore the registration of the Partnership formally as a charity.
Trustees? Additional legal requirements etc v benefits re fund raising etc?
insofar as the DfEE guidance permits, to request the Council to arrange for the new Government funding to go though the Partnership’s account.
How far do we push the Guidance requirements (which rely upon Council auditing etc) to recognise an independent role for the Partnership?
employ at least one Partnership Co-ordinating Worker to support the Partnership.
Job Description? Etc How do we ensure a "prudent" setup which does not duplicate areas? Where based?

4. That the Partnership needs to reflect a wide spread of interests - both by sector and geograpically - whilst ensuring an efficient and effective approach.

It is therefore suggested we need to: Issues for consideration:
streamline the number of representatives whilst at the same time encouraging representation from Local Area Networks and Parents.
Do we remove those who miss 3 consecutive meetings? (even if it takes us outside the national guidance?) How do we enhance ability for sector/ area representatives who are not on the formal Partnership to participate in Working Groups etc?
create a formal role for Partnership Advisors in our protocols (to cover both Council officers & "voluntary sector experts") - thereby simplifying Partnership membership.
Keeping balance? Accountability? Clarifying roles? Does this help reduce "Conflict of Interest" cases?
Resourcing the expenses of Partnership members, Parents Groups, and Local Area Networks within a capped budget approach and simple but effective spending guidelines and procedures.
What should the balance between operational costs; infrastructure support costs, and new development costs be? How much should Partnership officers get? What rules need to apply to funding supply cover? Should we use schools as a base for claiming & paying expenses?
Undertake a further review of working protocols; good practice code for meetings; in line with comments at awayday.
How do we do? Who?
Draft OUTLINE BUDGET 1999/2000 TABLE.2

  

 

 

 

 

DS/ 15.01.99/ beycp0199