Manchester Partnership Cities Agreements by gov86752

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 8

More Info
									                                Minutes of a Meeting of the
                                    Manchester Board
                                  Held on 27 March 2007


Present:              Councillor Sir Richard Leese   MCC (in the Chair)
                      Councillor Paul Murphy         GMPA
                      Rt Rev Nigel McCulloch         Faith Communities
                      Wadi Nassar                    MCCR
                      Evelyn Asante Mensah           Manchester PCT
                      Peter Fell                     The University of Manchester

Also Present:         Steve Mycio                    Deputy Chief Executive, MCC
                      Geoff Little                   Assistant Chief Executive,
                                                     Performance Improvement, MCC
                      Kath Smythe                    Manchester Partnership Manager
                      Peter Jones                    MPSL

Apologies:            Councillor Roger Jones (GMPTA), Davy Iredale (CN4M) and Gail
                      Porter (GONW)

1. Minutes of the meeting held on 19 December 2006

The minutes of the meeting of the Manchester Board held on 19 December 2006 were
presented for consideration.

Resolved/-

that the minutes be received.

2. Matters Arising

(a) Composition of Board (minute 2)

In response to a query from the Chair, Kath Smythe confirmed that there were currently
three vacancies for community members to be filled on the Board. It was hoped to
complete the appointment process by the July meeting of the Board. The Board discussed
membership of the appointments panel and concluded that it would be appropriate for the
panel to have a semi-independent membership.

Resolved/-

(i) that the report be noted.

(ii) that Board members be circulated details of the appointment process together with
options for the composition of the semi-independent recruitment panel.
3. Public Service Board Minutes - January, February and March 2007

The minutes of the meetings of the Public Service Board (PSB) held on 16 January, 13
February and 13 March 2007 were noted. The Chair requested that future minutes be
circulated as soon as possible after PSB meetings so that Board members could make
comments or ask questions as necessary.

Resolved/-

(i) that the minutes of the three meetings be noted.

(ii) that PSB minutes be circulated to Board members as soon as possible after meetings.

4. Community Cohesion

Steve Mycio introduced a report on Community Cohesion in Manchester. There had been
a number of co-ordinated initiatives and activities over the last few years that had helped
to build the Council’s knowledge and understanding of communities and strengthened
partnership working with public and voluntary agencies. More recent events, however,
meant that there was the need to revisit our approaches towards creating a shared sense
of belonging and what brought people together.

Community Cohesion underpins the three spines of the Community Strategy. Overall, the
aim was to develop a community cohesion framework and toolkit for assessing the impact
of existing strategies and initiatives on longer term community cohesion issues and to
identify any gaps in the current strategies. Such a framework should ensure that public
services are being delivered with a focus on promoting Community Cohesion. Within the
City, a Community Cohesion Task Group has been set up, chaired by the Leader, whose
main aim was to consider longer term community cohesion issues in Manchester. It was
also intended that one of the two Deputy Leaders would have specific responsibility for
community cohesion. The Public Service Board had already started to consider the issue
at a strategic level and intended to support local activities and staff to encourage
community cohesion.

A number of issues arose in discussion, including

(a) there was broad support for the strategy set out in the report; members emphasised
that although there had been a large influx of people from other cultures into some parts of
Manchester in a relatively short time, there were some factors that bound them to existing
communities, such as churches, and often the new members of a community were in work
or in business on their own account; this information needed to be disseminated so that
people had an accurate view of the current situation;

(b) age and demographics were key issues; in some faith communities, the ways that
present and previous communities share values was no longer happening;
(c) there were a number of local and national groups on faith issues where Manchester
was providing a lead; the Muslim Heritage Advisory Group, for example, included two local
head teachers in its membership and advised on curriculum development; the CofE
Bishop of Bolton was chair of the Christian/Islam Forum and the CofE Bishop of
Manchester was chair of the Christian/Jewish Council;

(d) it was important not to focus excessively on Muslim communities; there was a need to
look at all communities and develop commonalities.

Resolved/-

(i) that the report be noted.

(ii) that the approach and strategy set out in the report be broadly endorsed.

(iii) that the Public Service Board progress the delivery of the strategy and make periodic
reports to the Board.

5. Community Strategy and Manchester Partnership

Geoff Little gave a presentation on the Community Strategy and its links to the Manchester
Partnership. The Community Strategy 2006-2015 set out a vision to make Manchester a
world class city by 2015. This would be achieved through the performance of the economy
of the city and the sub-region and through the three spines of the Strategy: Reaching Full
Potential in Education and Employment, Individual and Collective Self-Esteem and
Neighbourhoods of Choice. The implementation of the Strategy should result in a larger
population that would be wealthier, living longer, healthier and happier lives, with a good
diverse and stable demographic mix.

The Manchester Partnership had a key role in delivering the Strategy. The Delivery
Framework comprised the Local Area Agreement (LAA), which set out a number of targets
negotiated with Government Office, Partner Agreements, which were agreed between
Partners without any central government involvement, and the Mancunian Agreements,
which set out a way for residents to participate in the vision and to show commitment to
making Manchester a better place. Seven pilots Agreements were currently underway.

There were a number of indicators that would measure the delivery of the Strategy. There
were three levels of State of the City indicators: high level indicators, linked to the vision of
the Strategy, key indicators linked to the three spines of the Strategy and high level
thematic indicators from the thematic partnership action plans that incorporated all LAA
and LPSA targets. A fourth level of indicators comprised the thematic early warning
indicators from thematic partnership action plans. There were named accountabilities at
the Public Service Board (PSB) for the indicators and targets.

The revised structure for the Partnership aimed to establish appropriate links between the
PSB and thematic, neighbourhood and cross-cutting partnerships. The PSB in turn was
accountable to the non-Executive Manchester Board. The PSB needed to ensure that the
PSB was providing effective leadership, effectively communicating the Community
Strategy, enabling staff to take risks and being innovative and creative in their approach.
The current challenge for the Partnership was to ensure that partnerships were fit for
purpose and working to deliver the priority actions. This required integrated planning
across agencies and a robust system of performance management. It was essential that
the Partnership added value to activities that would deliver the three spines, particularly
aspiration and well being.

Key priorities for the non-Executive Board were to hold the PSB to account, to review
annually through the State of the City indicators progress on the delivery of the Strategy, to
champion the Strategy within members’ own organisations and to lobby for change where
appropriate at local, sub-regional, national and international levels.

A number of issues arose in discussion, including

(a) the Board would find it useful to have information on areas where there had been rapid
change in the city; this would also help to compare Manchester’s progress with other
similar cities;

(b) although the yearly State of the City review was essential, there needed to be more
frequent assessment of activities, particularly at ward and neighbourhood levels; this
should include feedback from ward councillors and staff; it would be useful for the Board to
consider the current work on the demographics in the city;

(c) people’s perceptions of well being and happiness were also key issues; work was
being done by Professor Layard of the London School of Economics on these issues and
how they related to economic prosperity; there was also currently a project on resilience in
a number of Manchester’s schools that sought to inform and challenge students.

Resolved/-

(i) that Geoff Little be thanked for his informative presentation

(ii) that the Board at their next meeting consider the annual State of the City report and
receive a presentation on the current work on demographics and perception indicators.

6. Manchester Partnership Review

Kath Smythe introduced a report on the outcomes of the review of the Manchester
Partnership, as part of the need to increase accountability to ensure the delivery of the
Community Strategy and the Local Area Agreement.

Following on from the concerns raised at the last Board meeting, the PSB had undertaken
work to re-affirm their focus on the spines and had identified work streams to be
progressed to gain a better understanding of what will impact most on the spines and to
ensure that resources and capacity were adequately focused on those issues that will
have the greatest impact. Thematic Partnerships have each undergone reviews and, with
the exception of Transport, all have moved towards smaller, more focused performance
boards with links to wider forums. The Thematic Partnerships had started to look at their
wider role in delivering the spines and the linkages across Thematic Partnerships.
The idea of having two “sponsor” partnerships per spine with responsibility for co-
ordinating activity across the thematic areas, area and cross-cutting partnerships had been
proposed. They were also considering how to link to the regeneration framework and to
the review of ward co-ordination. In short, the focus of the PSB and the other partners
would now be on ensuring activities added value and contributed to the delivery of the
three spines.

In discussion, there was broad support from the Board on the proposals for the new
structure; it was felt, however, that further work needed to be done on a number of issues,
including the need to avoid duplication in the partnerships boards, the need to establish
the relationships between Thematic Partnerships and the over-arching relationships within
the structure.

Resolved/-

(i) that the progress report be noted.

(ii) that the Board broadly support the proposed new structures.

(iii) that a further report be made to the next meeting of the Board on the hierarchy of the
various groups in the new structure, what the links across the structures would be and on
membership of the various boards set out in detail in the report.

7. Overview and Scrutiny

Geoff Little introduced a report on forthcoming changes to the City Council’s Overview and
Scrutiny process. The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill included
provision to extend the overview and scrutiny function of local authorities to cover partner
organisations. If passed, the legislation would come into force in 2008. The report set out a
number of proposals to strengthen the Council’s Overview and Scrutiny process in
anticipation of the legislation. These would include the opportunity to raise issues with
elected Members that would benefit from their input, the opportunity to gain a
neighbourhood level perspective on the impact of key policies, the opportunity to involve
elected Members in developing policies that met local needs and the opportunity to raise
the profile of the work that partners were progressing.

The Chair added that the aim was to ensure that the process became more co-operative
and positive and to build on some existing innovative work.

Resolved/-

(i) that the report be noted.

(ii) that the proposals to introduce the changes to the overview and scrutiny process as set
out in detail in the report be endorsed.
8. Public Attendance at Board meetings

The Chair gave a verbal report to the meeting on public attendance at Board meetings.
The Board members agreed that the public had the right to attend meetings as observers
and could be excluded only for those items that considered private and confidential
information.

In a more general discussion, the Board considered the timing of meetings, as it was felt
that that could be a factor in whether members of the public would attend Board meetings.
There was broad support for keeping the start time at 8.00am but to keep the matter under
review.

Resolved/-

(i) that the Board formally endorse the policy of the public having the right to attend
meetings of the Board as observers.

(ii) that notice of Board meetings together with agendas and reports were placed on the
Partnership website.

(iii) that the meetings continue to start at 8.00am and this be kept under review.

9. Action Planning/Next steps

The Chair said that as there were already a number of items for consideration at the July
meeting, a medium term agenda/strategy for the Board be discussed at that meeting.

10. Any Other Business

There was no other business.

11. Date for next meetings

The next meeting was set for 17 July 2007 at 8.00am.
ACTION NOTE FROM MEETING OF BOARD HELD ON 27 MARCH 2007


1. Minutes of the Meeting held on 19 December 2006

Noted. No Action.

2. Composition of Board

Action

A. Details of appointment process to be circulated to Board members for comment. (Kath
Smythe)

3. Public Service Board Update

Action

A. PSB minutes to be circulated to members as soon as possible after meetings. (Kath
Smythe)

4. Community Cohesion

Action

A. PSB progress delivery of the delivery of the strategy and make periodic reports to the
Board. (Public Service Board)

5. Community Strategy and Manchester Partnership

Action

A. A report be submitted to the next meeting on the annual State of the City Indicators and
the current work on demographics and perception indicators. (Kath Smythe)

6. Manchester Partnership Review

Action

A report be submitted to the next meeting of the Board on the hierarchy of the various MP
groups, links across the structure and membership of the various Boards. (Kath Smythe)

7. Overview and Scrutiny

Noted. No action.
8. Public Attendance at meetings

Action

A. Notice of Board meetings, agendas and report be placed on MP website. (Kath
Smythe)

B. Starting time of meetings be kept under review. (Board)

9. Action Planning/Next steps

Action

A. A report on a medium term agenda/strategy be submitted to the next meeting of the
Board. (Kath Smythe)

10. Date for next meeting

17 July 2007 at 8.00am.

								
To top