|
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 thirty-minute item on, say, the transport strategy, that starts with a 20-minute PowerPoint, feels more like a briefing with ‘we have some time left for questions’, than a scrutiny session. And, you might argue, this makes it a 10-minute item in reality. Of course, briefings are important, but could you call them scrutiny? After all, it’s the scrutiny talk that’s the real work. If something interesting and useful is going to happen, it’s more likely to be during the back-and-forth exchanges between scrutiny and the executive. Presentations may have been given many times and can start to feel automatic for the presenters. It’s when the conversation goes ‘off-script’ that interesting things start to happen. Something else that worries Alex about PowerPoints and other long introductions is that it all makes preparation seem less important, at least for some committee members. I mean, why prepare if it’s all going to be explained to you on the day? You can even ask your clarifying questions at the meeting (a particular bugbear for Alex!). Much better, Alex thinks, for committee members to know that they will be getting ‘straight into it’. And then, if they haven’t done their homework, they risk struggling to keep up. And, if extra preparation is required, Alex might ask for a separate briefing from officers, perhaps online, for the committee beforehand (with PowerPoint welcome!). Alex’s meetings haven’t always been run this way. The inspiration for this approach was Alex’s friend who chairs a parliamentary scrutiny committee. Most times this chair will start the ball rolling with a general question such as: “Well, thank you for sending over the draft transport strategy, we will no doubt get into more detail, but can I start by asking what you would consider the biggest challenges that the strategy needs to overcome?” Sometimes, Alex’s friend will ask for some scene setting. They might say something like: “OK, I think it would be useful to understand how you would summarise this strategy. Can you start us off with a no-more-than-two-minute, overview?” Never a presentation though! On the face of it, it might not seem super important, but wouldn’t it be a good thing if there was more time for scrutiny talk? After all, as Alex would say, ‘let’s keep our meeting for scrutiny and save the lectures for college’. I hope this was useful to reflect on 🙏 |
Get reflections like this straight to your inbox. I also share them on LinkedIn.
It’s the 31st October and the scrutiny committee are on their annual Halloween trick or treat night out. Let's see how it goes. First off, you’ve got to admire their costumes. You can see all sorts of scrutiny ghouls. There is death by PowerPoint, the ‘devil in the detail’, the monster agenda, a zombie question and one, dressed in a sheet with holes cut for eyes, has come as the ghost of the committee system. There is even Pennywise the clown. Maybe for budget scrutiny I guess. Spooky! Scary!...
“What’s the best structure for scrutiny? And why is it the single committee system?” This is what Chairperson Alex said to me last week and, although she was half joking, I think I agree with her. So, if you are looking to review your scrutiny arrangements, involved in creating a new council or just wondering if your structure is the right one, see if my thinking stacks up for you. I’d say, the single committee system is best for scrutiny because: It’s more strategic. A single committee gets...
How does scrutiny actually make a difference? What are the exact mechanisms through which scrutiny influences the executive? It’s a tricky topic but here are ten suggestions. See if they ring true for you. I’m looking at this from a realist perspective. This is an approach that encourages us to identify the social mechanisms that might explain how a particular programme might achieve its outcomes. Take the example of CCTV in car parks, discussed by Pawson and Tilley in their book Realistic...