Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Norfolk Room, Conference Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham

No. Item


Minutes (Agenda Item 1) pdf icon PDF 63 KB

To agree the Minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2011.


The Minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2011 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.


Apologies (Agenda Item 2)

To receive apologies for absence.


Apologies for absence were received from Councillor C Bowes and Mr T Jermy.


Declarations (Agenda Item 3)

Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests pertinent to items on this agenda.


It was noted that all Members had a personal interest in the matters under discussion.


Thoughts on Member Roll-Out (Agenda Item 4) pdf icon PDF 54 KB

Report of Gordon Bambridge – E-Champion.


Mr Bambridge started by congratulating the ICT section for a good exchange of equipment.  Once the roll-out had begun it had gone very well.  Almost all complaints about the system had now been eliminated and Member training was well in-hand.


He drew attention to the following conclusions in his paper and to some amendments and additions suggested by the ICT section. 


  • Suggested amendments: paragraph two, change ‘officers’ to ‘ICT Management’ and paragraph four, change ‘slow rollout’ to ‘delay to the start of the rollout’.


The main problem had been caused by the late decision on which kit to purchase, and then the kit had been slow to arrive.  Mr Bambridge stressed the need to prepare for the next rollout following the elections in 2015.  He suggested that the Panel should have made its decision by the end of 2014, allowing time for new equipment to be costed, ordered and prepared in advance of the elections.  Councillors needed to have their equipment as soon as they were elected.


Mr Childerhouse asked how soon unopposed Members could be issued with their kit and Mr Bambridge felt that they should be first in line and should be issued with any new equipment before the elections if possible.


  • The level of equipment to be provided should be a Member-led decision.


  • A four year rollout should be recommended.


  • The new equipment should be the best available.


  • New Members should receive priority during the rollout.


  • There should be no change to equipment specification without the agreement of the Panel.  Officers should advise on cost, etc but the decision must be made by Members. 


  • In future there should be a single manager responsible for the project.


The Chairman and Mr Jordan felt that the Panel should meet at least once or twice a year to keep up with developments.


The IT Consultant encouraged Members to consider adopting a Policy to give Members a payment to purchase their own equipment.  The ICT section could then provide facilities for access and connectivity.  That was the system used by a lot of other Local Authorities and in his professional view was the best way forward.  He acknowledged that advice given to the Panel previously had been based on an extremely strict interpretation of Government security requirements which had restricted choice. 


The Service Delivery Manager explained that the rules had been provided to meet Audit requirements and may have been misinterpreted.  There was an Audit due in November and clarification would be sought at that time.


She mentioned that the Team had been tasked to provide standard kit, build and connectivity to Members and had received training to be able to support the new kit issued.  However, some Members had requested ‘add-ons’ such as Spider which caused support problems.


The Chairman said that it was important for the Panel to keep ahead of the game.  He did not think that all Members needed the full capability that laptops and PCs provided.  Looking ahead the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.


Members ICT Refresh (Agenda Item 6) pdf icon PDF 104 KB

End of Project Report by Kevin Rump - ICT Project Manager.


The Chairman was disappointed to see that one Member had refused to have any kit but it was accepted that the Council had no control over his decision.


The only other Member to refuse the new kit was a twin-hatted Member who was happy to use his County Council equipment.


No other points were raised and the report was noted.