Meeting documents

To consider this report.

Pam Pursley introduced herself as Risk manager, a role she was returning to after a period working in democratic services. She explained that the document was essentially a risk management pathway which includes strategy, policy, and process documentation. The report outlines how Somerset County Council manages its own risk and it is available for all to read. She then made the following key points. 

·                     There are several levels of risk across three categories, Operational (individual services), Project risks and Programme risks 

·                     Appendix d has been generated from JCAD which is the software used by SCC to manage risk. 

·                     She concluded the introduction by asking members of the committee if they are happy that this update is given quarterly, or would they prefer to see it at every meeting? Members agreed that it would be good to see the report at every other meeting of the audit committee.   

The Risk Manager thanked members for their time and asked for any questions or comments on the update. 

·                     Page 166 to 167 - Cllr Kerley asked for clarity on colour coding of risks and how this work with the scoring? The officer advised that the key information to look at would be the 5/5 scoring mechanism.  

·                     Cllr Sully (vice chair) enquired about risk training for members. The officer advised that there are two risk training sessions scheduled for September and October and that she would be happy to work with officers and members on a 121 basis if required.  

·                     Page 137 appendix b - Cllr Chilcott questioned why is this no longer used in council papers if it is part of the risk pathway?  

·                     Page 170 - Cllr Chilcottquestioned the sustainable MTFPscoring.  This has a score of 25 but a controlled risk assessment is 12 and suggested that 12 is far too low given the current MTFP situation. The officer advised that 25 is the current score (so very high to reflect the current situation) and 12 is the target score.  

·                     Cllr Chilcott asked about the cost-of-living crisis and suggested that this should have a score of 25. The Risk Manager advised that this is factored into risk 57 as above, but it could now be a risk on its own. She wouldinvestigate that. 

·                     Cllr Baker asked how often the risk pathway is reviewed. The risk manager advised that the risk pathway is reviewed every 2 years and added that acomplete review would be due next year, and this is good timing given the changes that will come with local government reorganisation.   

The committee accepted the report