Budget transfer from Department for Infrastructure to Department of Environment: Countryside Rangers Function

Information about the publication of Ministerial Decisions

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision
providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made 16 May 2016:

Decision Reference: MD-T-2016-0043
Decision Summary Title:	Budget transfer from the Department for Infrastructure to the Department of the Environment for the Countryside Rangers Function		Date of Decision Summary:	11 May 2016
Decision Summary Author:	Senior Management Accountant		Decision Summary: Public or Exempt?	Public
Type of Report: Oral or Written?	Written		Person Giving Oral Report:	N/A
Written Report Title:	Parks and Gardens Countryside Rangers Service Review		Date of Written Report:	11 May 2016
Written Report Author:	Business Development & Change Manager		Written Report : Public or Exempt?	Public
Subject: A one off transfer pro-rated for 2016 of £64,473 and a recurring budget transfer of £128,946 for the Countryside Rangers Function from the Department for Infrastructure to the Department of Environment.
Decision(s): The Minister for Infrastructure approved a one off transfer pro-rated for 2016 of £64,473 and a recurring budget transfer of £128,946 for the running costs of the Countryside Ranger function from the Department for Infrastructure to the Department of the Environment.
Reason(s) for Decision: Article 18(1)(c) of the Public Finances (Jersey) 2005 states that all or any part of the amount appropriated by a head of expenditure may, with the approval of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, be used for the purposes of another head of expenditure. Delegation 1.2 delegates authority for non-contentious transfers between heads of expenditure of up to £1,000,000 to the Treasurer of the States. Financial direction 3.6 states that Departments wanting to transfer funds between heads of expenditure must obtain the approval of their Minister or Accounting Officer where a scheme of delegation exists.
Resource Implications: The Department for Infrastructure revenue head of expenditure to decrease by a recurring £128,946 from 2017 with a one off transfer pro-rated for 2016 of £64,473 and the Department of Environment revenue expenditure to increase by the same amount.The transfer of one Charge Hand post and two Ranger posts equivalent to three FTE.
Action required: The Finance Director to inform the Head of Decision Support and the Head of Financial Reporting that the Minister has approved the transfer and request that the budget and posts be transferred to the Department of Environment.
Signature:		Position: Minister for Infrastructure
Date Signed:		Date of Decision:

Budget transfer from Department of Infrastructure to Department of Environment: Countryside Rangers Function

Business Case for Organisational Change

States_Spot

Business Case
Name/Description of Proposal:	Parks and Gardens Countryside Rangers Service Review Department for Infrastructure (DfI)
Manager/Owner:	John Rogers
Business Case Prepared by:	Fay Gibaut
Date:	16th February, 2016

Version	Date	Changed by	Changes	Distribution
1	26.02.16	F. Gibaut	Financials finalised

Approved by (Signature)

Name in Block Capitals

Job Title

Date

1. Introduction

A review of the areas managed by the Arboricultural Officer was carried out in June 2015, there were 6 operational posts within the Countryside Rangers section. Since that time Transport and Technical Services (TTS) has merged with Property Holdings to become the Department for Infrastructure (DfI). In order to meet the Medium Term Financial Plan budget savings of £4.6m, there has been a transitional period where Voluntary Redundancies have been offered to staff and as such the Organisation Chart below shows that actual operational staff numbers at the completion of the review is down to 3.

Organisation Chart at completion of Service Review

Manager

Assistant Manager (Arboricultural Officer)

Countryside Rangers

1 Chargehand

2 Rangers

2 Vacant Ranger Posts

1 Contract Ranger(vacant Post)

2. Objectives of the Service Review

The objective of this piece of work was to review the current operations and determine the best method of delivery into the future.

3. Background and overview of Operations

In 2005, 3 Rangers were transferred to the Parks and Gardens Section (P&G) of the Department for Infrastructure (DFI) from the Department of the Environment (DoE) to join their existing team of Rangers.

Whilst this was a positive move at the time, over the years the availability of other staff within P&G to back up this service is no longer an option due to reduced staff numbers. In addition the workloads are now much tighter with far less room for flexibility amongst the various teams who have their own job roles that need to be completed in order to meet contract deadlines.

The schedule of work given to the team is received directly from the Environment Department and has now become very specific as to what targets need to be achieved each month, to the point that there is no involvement in the management of the team to identify their monthly workloads by their own line manager. This results in there being no flexibility to use this team as an additional resource if necessary within the remainder of the P&G.

As such the management of the team has become far more of an administrative role dealing with holiday requests, sickness monitoring etc. rather than that of a supportive role involved in daily decision making for work that is being carried out. There are no benefits to DfI to be the employing department.

When looking at this style of working as a “Lean” process it no longer makes logical sense in that the work is provided in a very specific format of required tasks for each month and given direct via a computer package from the Environment Department. DfI does not have any input into the work being carried out nor in what order it is to be achieved and this no longer makes any sense in having management from DfI involved in this team. It is just adding another line of management control that is not efficient or of benefit in the process.

The DoE has advised that it would support this Option as it would transfer across three already skilled and trained staff and would ensure continuity and flexibility of service for that Department.

4. Recommendation

As part of this review a number of options for the future of the service were considered. The preferred option is outlined below.

Outcome – Countryside Rangers

This option results in the transfer of the original three staff posts and equipment and vehicles with the associated budget back to the Environment Department.

It reduces the need for a large shed to house the current team and this could then be utilised by other core areas within DfI or leased to bring in an income.

Benefits

This option makes the saving of three members of staff and budget which is two Ranger posts and a Ranger on a 12 month renewable contract.

When the Rangers team transferred to P&G in 2005 it transferred across with three staff and their budgets and also a maintenance and equipment budget of just £16,900. It is the intention to transfer back the initial budget plus 2.5% added each year which is the standard cost increase within States of Jersey budgets, giving a maintenance budget of £21,500.

It frees up time for the Manager of this team who is the Department’s Arboricultural Officer to be able to carry out this core essential work for the Department and advisory service to other States Departments.

Staff Savings

2 Countryside Rangers (both posts currently vacant)
1 Contract Ranger (post vacant since completion of this review)

Risks and Issues

There are very few risks to P&G with this option as it is essentially moving the service over to the Environment Department to directly manage the resources rather than indirectly through a tier of management within P&G.

There would be a saving of approximately half the equipment and resources but it does put the resource where it is more appropriate to be managed.

Whilst this Option transfers 3 of the 6 posts previously allocated in this area, it does transfer back the same resource that the Environment Department had at its disposal at the time of the merger with DfI’s existing team of Rangers.

As can be seen from the Staff Savings highlighted above the savings from this Option have already been achieved.

4. Financial Transfer

SUMMARY TABLE OF BUDGET TRANSFER

Operating Costs

Manpower (3FTE)

Equipment, maintenance, vehicles etc.

Total Budget Transfer

£107,446

£21,500

£128,946