Governance and Performance Qtr 1 Risk Report (Agenda item 7)
- Meeting of Formal Approval of the Statement of Accounts, Governance and Audit Committee, Friday, 26th September, 2014 10.00 am (Item 54/14)
- View the background to item 54/14
Report by Kim Parks, Senior Performance Analyst.
The Senior Performance Analyst presented the Quarterly Risk report on behalf of the Performance Team. She explained that James Edwards, the previous presenter of these reports, who had taken over the reporting role from Chris Brooks, was about to leave the Council and as it was his last day she had been asked to take his place but was unsure how to present the information. The Performance Team was currently under review and someone else would be appointed to report risks in future but she was more than happy to take questions or comments and report back.
Mr Ludlow had been surprised to note that all strategic risks that used to be scored as a 9 were now not above a score level of 6. He also mentioned the operational risk on page 22 of the report, H-OR 05 Failure of Key Partners, and asked what steps were being taken to gauge what these failures could be particularly in relation to Flagship if the organisation happened to go bust. The Executive Director thought that the word partner was one of those over used phrases. She explained that the risk was where there was a financial commitment (inputs and outputs) such as the Anglia Revenues Partnership and suggested that the Council did have a mechanism in place for any potential failure. She pointed out that Rob Walker, the Assistant Director for Community, was currently undertaking a strategic review of the Council’s key partnerships.
The Vice-Chairman asked if the quarter under review was the previous or the current quarter. The Senior Performance Analyst explained that the quarter being reported was for April, May and June and unfortunately, due to the timing of the Audit Committee meetings, Members were always going to be a quarter behind; however, she would put a suggestion forward to collect all risks the month before. The Internal Audit Consortium Manager said that she would try and do this too to fit in with the Audit Committee timetable. The Executive Member for Finance & Democratic Services said that Members would prefer to know as soon as possible when a risk increased and not three months later. It was noted that this reporting methodology had always been presented at quarter end but would be reviewed going forward. The Executive Director asked Members to be careful not to confuse risk reporting with risk management as the management side had been embedded well into the organisation and was reported on a regular basis, whereas the risk reporting system was a relatively flat collation of data. From the conversation being had she believed that it was the former that the Committee wanted to see. The Chairman pointed out that it was the responsibility of the Portfolio Holders to be aware of when risks changed not the Audit Committee’s and he felt that the Committee should just receive the reporting stage of the process.
The Vice-Chairman queried the risk under Asset Management in relation to the failure of income from industrial properties particularly when he had noted on a report at the Full Council meeting the previous day that the Council’s industrial properties were 98% let.
The Governance & Performance Quarter 1 Risk Report was otherwise noted.