“What’s the secret of a good scrutiny recommendation?” Chairperson Alex asked me this the other day and we spent a little time trying to work it out over a coffee. It’s not so much, Alex tells me, that recommendations from scrutiny inquiries don’t get accepted, they nearly always do, it’s more that not much seems to happen as a result. The response that annoys Alex the most is ‘accepted in principle’. For Alex, this often means: “Sounds like a good idea but we’re not going to do anything as...
1 day ago • 2 min read
On your website it says that scrutiny’s purpose is ‘holding decision makers to account’. But is it clear to you what this actually means? If you were writing an annual report, could you confidently say scrutiny 'held the executive to account’ or ‘ensured accountability’? And how might you back that up? OK, so perhaps it doesn’t worry you too much. After all, everyone knows what accountability means, right? Well, maybe. Let’s unpack it a little and see if we are on a similar page. We can start...
8 days ago • 1 min read
“Scrutiny meetings feel like a conveyor belt, just one item after another”. This is something I’ve heard a few times when talking to scrutiny committee members. They say: “Just when you are starting to get into the details of something it’s time to move on. You are really only ticking a box and sometimes only noting things. You don’t feel like you can make a difference to anything.” When I ask what they would prefer instead, they talk about having the time to really get into things, maybe...
14 days ago • 2 min read
A safe space for scrutiny? Would you say that executive members arrive at your scrutiny meeting ‘wearing armour’? Perhaps they are ‘on the defensive’ or ‘determined to stick to their script’? I’m asking as these are things I’ve heard occasionally from scrutineers and thought it might be helpful to reflect on. Whilst this defensiveness might simply be a choice on behalf of the executive member, it might also have something to do with the way they have come to see scrutiny and the experiences...
22 days ago • 2 min read
A scrutiny chair I know, let’s call them Alex, likes to say, ‘less chalk, more talk’, when inviting people to speak with scrutiny. This is often followed with, ‘this is a committee room, not a classroom!’ What they mean is, ‘we don’t need to waste time setting the scene, let’s get straight into discussion. Our time is limited after all’. ‘Less presentation, more conversation’ might be another way to put this, I guess. I definitely get where Chairperson Alex is coming from. Maybe you do too? A...
29 days ago • 2 min read
Are your scrutiny conclusions fake or fortune? Are your insights and proposals credible and compelling? Do they influence and engage? Or do they barely cause a ripple? Fake or Fortune?, as you might know, is a TV programme. I think it has something to say about scrutiny and, if truth be told, It’s a bit of a guilty pleasure. In each episode, a team of two, investigate a paining of uncertain origin, building up evidence to convince a leading authority on that artists work, whether the painting...
about 2 months ago • 1 min read
The other day, a scrutineer mentioned to me that they were having to move their scrutiny committee meetings into the council chamber for six months. I think they were a little surprised to see the concerned look on my face and so we ended up talking it through for a while. Not such a big deal, they said, but I wasn’t so sure. First of all, this is an old council chamber with fixed seating and plenty of wood panelling. Apart from anything else it comes with a definite ‘council chamber vibe’...
2 months ago • 2 min read
A friend, who knows little about our world of scrutiny, heard about something needing to be scrutinised and said “ah, that sounds like an unpleasant procedure!” It started me reflecting on the words we use to talk about scrutiny and the impact this has on our scrutiny work. Perhaps you are careful about the language you use - I know I’ve been careless in the past. And does this matter? Well, I suspect that it does. As Deborah Tannen says, the words we use can shape our reality, for example,...
2 months ago • 2 min read
On that question of how scrutiny makes a difference, have you thought about its protective benefits? The idea that scrutiny can be influential through anticipation. That just the possibility of scrutiny will cause decision makers to stop and think - with governance improved as a result. I was reminded about this the other day when, walking down the road, I saw a cyclist with a yellow sign on his back displaying a camera symbol. Is this something you’ve seen? The idea, I guess, is to encourage...
3 months ago • 1 min read
A question, dear scrutineer. What challenges do you think lie ahead for scrutiny? What are the pressing issues for you looking forward? I’ve made a start on a list, what do you think? I’ve been reflecting on this as I prepare for a workshop I’m running at the ADSO national conference titled: ‘Fit for the future? Rethinking scrutiny and scrutiny support’. The starting point, I’d say, is getting some understanding of what the challenges might be. Of course, as William Gibson suggested, the...
3 months ago • 1 min read