Executive Board Minutes – 27 September 2022

Lisa Winward (LW) – Chief Constable, NYP  

Mabs Hussain (MH)             – Deputy Chief Constable, NYP  

Simon Dennis (SD) – Chief Executive & Monitoring Officer, OPFCC 

Jonathan Dyson (JD) – Chief Fire Officer, NYFRS 

Mathew Walker (MW)        – Interim Deputy Chief Fire Officer, NYFRS 

Rena Brown (RB) – Managing Director, enableNY 

Jenni Newberry (JN) – Head of Commissioning & Partnerships, OPFCC 

Thomas Thorp (TT) – Interim Assistant Chief Executive & Deputy Monitoring Officer, OPFCC  

Caroline Blackburn (CB) – Interim Assistant Chief Executive & Deputy Monitoring Officer, OPFCC  

Mike Clements (MC) – Head of Finance, enableNY 

Michael Porter (MP) – Chief Finance Officer, OPFCC 

Maeve Chappell (MCh)       – Corporate Communications Lead, enableNY 

Ian Scott (IS)                          – Chief of Staff & Head of Ops Performance (observing) 

Tina James-McGrath (TJM) – Office and Volunteer Manager, OPFCC (minutes) 

Sarah Davies (SJD)                 – EA (EMT), OPFCC (observing)  

Rachel Antonelli (RA)          – Force Solicitor & Head of Legal Services, NYP – Evolve  

The minutes from the previous meeting held in August were approved.   

The action log was discussed:- 

Item 7 – will be picked up at a separate meeting. 

Item 9 – NYP items: FMS5 is to be closed on the action log and be placed on the forward planner for April 2023.  

Item 10 – OPFCC items: to be updated at a future meeting.  

Item 11 – enableNYP: to be discussed in the meeting today.   

The meeting was informed of the formal response of the FBU to the RRM, which was sent the previous night (26.09.22), some considerable time after the deadline for consultation responses and after the papers were written for this meeting, during which the decision is being made. JD noted that it was important that the FBU communication on the RRM was received and whilst the response was late, he is confident that all points raised have been addressed in the consultation report and that there is nothing to change as a result of the letter.   

It was decided that special consideration of the FBU response was to be discussed in this meeting so that their views were heard prior to the formal decision being made. TT addressed the main concerns of the FBU letter and JD responded to these, demonstrating that the consultation report captures each point and answers them in detail. The issues raised by the FBU have been addressed throughout the public consultation process and the PFCC is satisfied that there is nothing new contained within the FBU letter which needs to be considered.   

The timeline and cost implications contained within the RRM, as well as the capacity for enableNY to deliver, were discussed with the meeting prior to the break.   

The meeting reconvened and TT read out the RRM decision notice in detail with the response of the PFCC to each proposal. ZM thanked those involved in the work of the RRM and informed the meeting that she agrees with the decision notice which has been read by TT.   

The decision notice will be published on Thursday 29 September 2022.   

ZM confirmed approval of the proposal in line with the Decision Notice and conditions noted therein as discussed and agreed.  

SD provided the meeting with an update, noting next key milestones being: Local Authorities are due to meet in October 2022 to formally consider the deal and scheme in relation to the Combined Mayoral Authority (MCA); public consultation to be undertaken between October/December 2022; proposal returned to government Spring 2023 for approval.  

SD noted also that in addition to the ongoing work within the OPFCC in relation to Levelling up, recruitment will shortly be underway to recruit for resources to support the OPFCC transition work.SD added that the initial MCA session planned had been postponed due to the recent state funeral of the late Queen Elizabeth II but this is now due to go ahead 3rd October 2022 and SD/MP will be in attendance. SD explained that the OPFCC’s inclusion in such events and with local authority discussions to date had been very well received and highly valued in terms of contribution. CB will also be attending the APACE Working Group regarding this work at which central government will also be represented.  

Of note, moving forward, it will be key to factor into discussion and plans, the interdependencies across NYP, NYFRS and the OPFCC.  

6b. OPFCC Delivery Plan and Organisational Development Update  

SD detailed the progress of the OPFCC staff consultation which is ongoing, due to be finalise 30th September 2022. SD noted some recruitment activity in support of this re-organisation had already been undertaken successfully (Director roles), with some additional recruitment activity to be undertaken on completion of the consultation. As an interim measure, both Caroline Blackburn (CB) and Sarah Arnott (SA) had agreed to undertake the Director roles. The final OPFCC structure will be shared by SD at a future Executive Board meeting as well as circulated by SD.  

Action: SD to circulate to all the OPFCC structure when finalised for publication.  

6c. Commissioned Services Update   

JN provided a commissioned services update to the meeting, noting:  

• The progress of the Victims Centre in York which whilst still on track, may require revisitation of costs due to standard of refurbishment required for such a centre 
• Joint SARC – the transfer of the procurement responsibility has now transferred to the NHS, albeit with some risks/concerns which had successfully been addressed prior to this transfer of responsibility 
• Public Trust and Confidence survey will be online from October 2022 by way for a brief survey to be completed, dependant on answers to which, the respondent may be invited to complete a more in dept survey. It is possible that in the future this could be replicated for both NYP and NYFRS

RB noted the potential for uplift in costs associated with the joint SARC and the associated impact on enableNY in supporting this project with the cost implications specifically having the potential to impact the NYP budget. JN confirmed full clarity would only be known on receipt of updated costing schedule to which MP agreed.  

Action: MP to update all regarding SARC costings once full updated costings schedule received.  

Action: Further discussion required between ZM/MP/RB/JN.  

RB provided a summary of the approach to looking at governance framework as detailed within the paper submitted. RB noted that this had been drafted being mindful of Police and Crime plan along with the core PEEL principles and whilst this had been drafted in relation to NYP only that this time, there is potential in the future to adopt a similar framework for NYFRS. RB explained that where gaps had been identified, it was hoped this framework once agreed would fill those gaps moving forward.  

TT agreed a shift in terms of reporting to that of by exception would be acceptable, along with avoiding duplication where at all possible. The meeting further agreed it was key to ensure a cohesive approach to governance was undertaken across all functions and that all action plans as outputs from Boards reflected the cohesive approach with their action plans becoming another layer in the overall model for governance and decision making. MP raised the concern of ensuring within the governance framework, that the appropriate level of cross referencing would be undertaken in support of a cohesive approach and the corporate code.  

The meeting proceeded to discuss the key elements of the governance framework and agreed next steps for draft of framework. In addition, the meting agreed all gaps in the governance model should be identified and addressed within the draft of the new framework. In addition, all agreed with the revised governance framework in place this would provide assurance to the public also.  

In conclusion, all agreed with this approach and further noted the past challenges of being able to capture data in order that moving forward, this was also addressed within the revised framework.  

7b. Ripon/York Estates Update  

RB noted for the record this had been a last-minute request and that at this time, work was ongoing for both projects. As such, RB was unable to provide an update to the meeting at this time.   

LW noted for the meeting that resource/capacity for the team appeared to be a challenge and as such, this would require review to support the team to deliver against these projects.