Milton Keynes    see also FOI Material 2005

 From Milton Keynes Council Cabinet Minutes 21 Jul 2009 http://cmis.milton-keynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=27600 

Termination of the Leisure Connection Contract

The existing management contract with Leisure Connection is due to expire in
2011. Legal Services has confirmed that there is a termination clause in the
contract that allows the Council to terminate the contract with four months’
written notice. Compensation will not arise out of the termination except to the
extent that Leisure Connection can prove it has made a capital investment in
Bletchley Leisure Centre, which has not yet been repaid by the Council. In this
event, the Council may be required to fairly and reasonably repay any
undepreciated investment which it owes to Leisure Connection.

Contract Commencement

The new management contract is due to start on 1st September 2009 with the
direct management of the community centres and sports grounds as the first
phase so that the season for the sports grounds and regular autumn bookings
can be managed as one. The new Bletchley Leisure Centre, once completed
will be handed over to the management operator in Mid November 2009,
however there will be a significant mobilisation plan implemented particularly
as regards the new leisure centres operations, marketing and general setting
up for public access and use.

Despite having leisure contracts with several organisations Milton Keynes Council has skimped on the oversight of leisure centre contracts. This might explain why the 2005 FOI requests about the performance of LC in Milton Keynes learned more from an Environmental Health report than anything else sent. It appears no council committee receives even an annual report on the performance of leisure contracts.

As well as the worrying  Environmental Health report there are other indications that all has not been sweetness and light in local leisure services. An internal audit report on "Leisure Community Properties" published in July 2005 said:

" It is noted that a key member of the team was absent due to long term sickness which did impact upon the consistent monitoring of Leisure Centres. Furthermore, Managers at one particular Leisure Centre have not been fully co-operative with Leisure Services and Audit acknowledge the new approach adopted in ensuring that this Leisure Centre is meeting the needs of residents."

There is no reason to assume the company in question is LC and I am happy to confirm this if either the Council or LC write or email a denial. Similarly, if the other managements let me know it was not them, I will include this information. 

It seems very unfair that those who co-operated come under suspicion in order to protect the name of the guilty. This happens again in another part of the report.

"Benchmarking is yet to be completed due to certain Leisure Centres questioning the process. There are expectations that this will be completed by the third quarter of 2005."

The report also says "Leisure Centres have not been challenged to ensure that actual expenditure of the grant awarded matched the original intentions of both parties." 

The anonymity in  the audit report might have something to do with what featured in the December 2005  "Medium Term Service Plan" for Internal Audit. "The Freedom of Information Act will play a large role in altering the culture of the service and its relationship with clients. Reports that must be published will place greater importance on maintaining good relationships with clients to avoid Audit being perceived as an 'enemy'."

While the reference to clients presumably means the council and its departments, the scope would seem to have been extended, at least in the leisure audit, to sparing the blushes of a contractor. While this might make for easier relationships in Milton Keynes, it does nothing to alert other councils to the issues they might face with a potential contractor. Is such concealment in the spirit of the FOI Act?

The wider public interest would be better served by a policy that says those contractors found not to have done what is expected of them will be named. 

Paul Burns