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’ with all of the bluster and confrontation that comes with it. And it’s a vibe that seems to permeate the proceedings that take place there.

Given the choice, I know many in the scrutiny collective would prefer select committee seating.

From a citizen’s point of view, it makes things a lot clearer. You have the decision makers at the witness table and the committee members in that familiar U-shape, facing towards them. You can see the accountability relationship before anyone speaks.

Of course, it’s sometimes tricky for the audience to see ‘into’ the meeting, and not just the backs of heads, although I’m sure you can work something out. And, actually, online maybe better for viewability from the audience point of view.

And the viewing experience is not the only reason to choose select committee seating.

Have you noticed how seating arrangements can help shape behaviours?

If you think about it, two people sat together like they are on a park bench will have a very different exchange compared with if they are facing each other and 20 feet apart. Whilst the former encourages a friendly, casual exchange, the latter gives you something more careful and formal - something that’s much more suited to the accountability relationship between scrutiny and executive.

Select committee seating isn’t best for everything, however, if you want constructive dialogue, for example, a small circle is best. If you want transparency, you might want your committee more in a line, facing the audience.

Being a bit of a geek about these issues I have had an article published along with academic colleagues Catherine Farrell and Matt Wall. One of our takeaways was that no single seating arrangement will do everything when it comes to good governance. What one set-up gains for accountability, it loses for participation, what another set-up gains for transparency, it loses for debate and discussion. There will always be trade-offs.

The key is to think like a scenic designer and to ask what arrangement is best for the audience and best for what the committee is trying to do. In that way you might do just enough moving of the chairs to make a noticeable difference.

Not in that old council chamber, of course. I hope that scrutineer doesn’t have to endure it for too long.

​
​

Farrell, C., McKenna, D. and Wall, M., 2022. Setting the stage: scenic design and observers’ perceptions of the quality of public governance meetings. Public Management Review, 24(11)

​
​