Vice Chair Jo was telling me the other day about one of the members on her scrutiny committee. “I mean, he’s very polite, I think he enjoys the sessions and asks good questions sometimes but…” (and I knew there was a ’but’ coming) “… he just doesn’t believe in it, he just doesn’t think there is any actual point to scrutiny”.

I’ve heard this before, of course.

Even after all these years I hear people talking about the ‘good old committee system’ and how scrutiny was an afterthought when they created cabinets for local government. ‘It’s just to give backbenchers something to do but it’s only a talking shop really’.

Jo is not sure if this is a problem or not. And, if it is, what you could do about it?

Part of me thinks just let it go and focus your attention elsewhere. I mean, if this councillor is happy to come along for the ride then maybe, if the committee does have some impact, then that might shift his opinion. Perhaps all Jo needs to do is bring as much attention as possible to the successes of the committee, whenever they happen?

On the other hand, is it too dangerous a narrative to just let it run?

What if it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy? Perhaps this councillor is not alone and this is being repeated elsewhere. What if it’s ingrained in the culture?

Chairperson Alex is very clear about the need to address this type of talk head on.

“Read the reports!” Is her response.

Yes, we’ve seen a number of governance failures over the years and councils that have needed interventions as a result. Usually there are reports to be read afterwards and you can be sure that each will likely put scrutiny somewhere in the centre of the story.

Sometimes it’s the executive who ignore scrutiny or refuse to share the information that scrutiny requires.

Sometimes scrutiny is too deferential or ineffective or unaware of what good scrutiny requires.

Either way, the result is typically group think leading to poor, sometimes calamitous decisions or a failure to recognise serious problems affecting citizens.

I do wonder if we could spend a little more time talking about these reports, not just to see what lessons might be learnt, but to remind ourselves of just why scrutiny is so important.

And these reports are, more often than not, just the beginning of the story. I’ve been so impressed with those scrutineers who, having been through what have been difficult experiences and interventions, have still been able to build effective scrutiny arrangements in the aftermath.

It’s always good to learn from these folks!

As for Jo, I wonder if perhaps a chat with Chairperson Alex might be helpful. I know she has found these chats helpful in the past.

​

If you want to add/see any comments, I've posted this on Linkedin here.