Issue - meetings

Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Process Guide

Meeting: 29/06/2012 - Governance and Audit Committee (Item 45)

45 Service Team Plans and Strategic Risk Registers (Agenda item 10) pdf icon PDF 28 KB

Report of the Assistant Director of Democratic Services.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Governance & Performance Accountant explained that this report had been to various meetings and the information had been gathered from the new Performance Plus system.

 

The report included the strategic and operational risk registers. 

 

The responses to the following questions put forward by Mr Ludlow before the meeting were as follows:

 

NB: not all the responses had come from the risk owners, due to officer unavailability. 

 

The Governance & Performance Accountant had answered these queries to the best of his ability based on conversations from risk review meetings that had been held with risk owners.

 

Members are asked to note that individual risks where the rating has not changed has not been mentioned despite control measures and mitigations plans unless it has a current rating of more then 6 or there is another specific query relating to it.

 

In BC-AP-OR 03 what does CMT stand for?

Corporate Management Team

 

In BC-AP-OR 08 what does ATT stand for?

Academy Trust (Trading) (I believe – this risk relates to Swaffham High School moving to academy status).

 

In BC-ED-OR 04 what does KOG stand for?

Key Officer Group (non-service managers - next tier of management)

 

Strategic

 

BC-SR 01 - Maxine O’Mahony

Why has the rating not changed after the effect of control measures and mitigation actions?

The risk score has not changed as it is recognised that economic pressures are outside of our control, despite the implementation of control measures / mitigation plans.  It is felt to be prudent to reflect the risk at its current score.

 

BC-SR 02 - Mark Finch

Why has the likelihood increased after the effect of control measures and mitigation plans?

This is due to the “inherent” score being a historic score.  Used as a benchmark and reflects that because of current budgetary pressures this risk has increased.  It is felt to be prudent to reflect the risk at its current score.

 

BC-SR 05 - Maxine O’Mahony

How are the increases in capacity to be achieved when there is no HCA funding for Trafalgar?

Delivery of affordable housing is not dependent on HCA Funding.

 

BC-SR 06 - Vicky Thomson

Surely the risk is not just about reputational damage - what about the real impact on residents?

This is a fair point – this will be reviewed with the risk owner and updated accordingly.   

 

BC-SR 07 - Mark Stokes

Why has the rating not changed after the effect of control measures and mitigation actions?

This risk score has not changed – whilst controls have been identified, there are still actions to be completed.  It is felt to be prudent to reflect the risk at its current score in light of this.

 

BC-SR 11 - Maxine O’Mahony

Why has the rating not changed after the effect of control measures and mitigation actions?

The outcome of this risk is still unknown.  As a result it was deemed appropriate the risk score has remained the same. 

 

BC-SR 12 - Mark Stokes

Why has the rating not changed after the effect of control measures  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45


Meeting: 14/02/2012 - Cabinet (Item 28)

28 Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Process Guide (Agenda item 7) pdf icon PDF 56 KB

Report of Adrian Stasiak, Executive Member for Performance & Business Development.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Deputy Leader and Executive Member for Performance & Development introduced this item.

 

The Governance & Performance Accountant presented the new Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Process Guide that had been based on current best practice.  He highlighted the different roles within the authority.

 

The Anglia Revenues Partnership used the same process and approach to risk management but used a 5 x 5 scoring matrix for risk assessment as previously agreed by the Joint Committee (see Appendix A of the report).

 

The new Policy and Process Guide would be supported with a full implementation plan and training for Members and Officers.

 

It was noted that the Audit Committee had discussed and had agreed the report at its meeting on 3 February 2012.

 

In response to a concern about whether this document included new procedures for mitigating potential risks, Members were informed that these had been captured in the Process Guide.

 

The Executive Member for Planning & Environmental Services felt that Officers within the authority had the wrong attitude towards risk and he hoped that by having this in place there would be more effective and appropriate behaviour towards it.

 

The Chief Executive stated that this Policy and Process Guide concentrated on mitigating risks and it would not stifle the authority from its day to day business.

 

Option 1

 

That the Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Process Guide be recommended to Cabinet for adoption.

 

Option 2

 

Continue to operate with two separate Risk Management Strategies across the two authorities.

 

Reasons

 

The new Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Process Guide reflected best practice in risk management and were based on the principles of ISO 31000 and OGC’s Management of Risk (M_o_R) guidelines and would introduce a standardised approach to risk management for both authorities.

 

RESOLVED that the Risk Management Policy and Risk Management Process Guide be adopted, subject to a small amendment to Appendix A on page 24 of the agenda, 3rd paragraph to read:” the needs of all four partners”.