Managing the Partnership. After the new service arrangement is set in motion, and the recipient agency has successfully transferred the financial and administrative burdens to the provider, the recipient agency remains responsible to its citizens for the quality of service. Citizens still lodge their complaints with their own elected officials, and there will likely be some public confusion about which agency is doing what. Concerns will likely raise their heads during the first year of a new partnership. By anticipating them and taking steps to minimize their effects, conflicts and confusion can be held to a minimum. Handling Complaints Handling of complaints will greatly affect the public’s opinion of the new arrangement. Be certain you have a clear and efficient procedure to help get these resolved quickly and decisively. The process should keep the recipient jurisdiction in the loop, while allowing citizens to complain to their own government and still achieve prompt resolution. Setting Standards of Service Service standards are essential for evaluation. If they are not spelled out in the agreement, they must be developed separately. Such standards of performance provide the definition of the level and quality of service the provider has agreed to deliver and that the recipient agency expects to receive. Without clear standards, communications about performance will be unproductive and the relationship will suffer. These standards can include the frequency and areas of law enforcement patrol, minimum training and certification of personnel, hours of service, and public outreach and education efforts. Issuing Reports and Evaluations Reports and evaluations of service performance should formalize verbal communications. Regular informal meetings with key partner representatives should discuss contract performance and problems encountered. The providing agency’s department director, who is responsible for delivering an important service, should be included in management meetings of the recipient jurisdiction. Mutual respect and communication – the bedrock of any relationship – are crucial to intergovernmental dealings.
Managing the Partnership. Structure The Glasgow Arts Partnership will operate under a ‘Managing Agent’ model. This means that Glasgow CAN as the lead organisation will act as Managing Agent. The Managing Agent will identify and administer opportunities. Glasgow CAN will be guided by the contribution of the members and the Steering Group, however the final decision on whether to proceed with projects and on how to manage specific projects will rest with Glasgow CAN. Steering Group (GAP members) Operational Group (Glasgow CAN) Project Team (within a project) Undertakes project Managing Agent Advisory capacity Group Name Responsibilities Membership Steering Group Advising Glasgow CAN on the ongoing development of GAP Voluntary from the GAP membership. External advisors may be invited to participate Operational Group Leading and managing GAP The core team made of Glasgow CAN staff and freelancers Project Team Undertaking the activities of specific projects Selected GAP members and collaborators Meetings – Rules Partners agree to the Meeting rules set out in the Appendix.
