Should officers draft questions for committee members to read out?
|
Councillor Smith has an officer draft his questions for him to read out at scrutiny committee meetings. But Vice Chair Jo doesn’t like it at all. What do you think? When I asked Councillor Smith about it, he told me that it gave him more confidence as the officer support is very good. He knows that it will be a question worth asking and he doesn’t always have time to work on the questions himself - scrutiny committee starts at 6.00 and he barely has time to get there from work, let alone have a cup of tea before everything starts. It’s good to know, he tells me, that, even if he hasn’t had time to prepare something, he can still contribute. There is also always the chance to put his own stamp on it with a follow up question. And in any case, the cabinet members have statements and answers drafted for them, so why not committee members? Right? Vice Chair Jo has a different perspective. Scrutiny should be member led, she tells me. And if members aren’t owning the questions, then it’s going to feel more like officers are running things. Her friend Alex, who is a scrutiny chair at another council, told her about a committee where pre-prepared questions are sent to cabinet members in advance. You sometimes then get committee members reading out questions and cabinet members reading out answers. Ridiculous! Says Jo. If members are responsible for developing their questions, they are more likely to be able to follow up well as they understand the background better. It just feels like they might be better able to get to the heart of things, says Jo. Far better, she says, to get the officers to work with us to develop themes so that we can think up our own questions. We do this by email she tells me, and that Alex's committee uses WhatsApp. These can also be shared with cabinet members and other witnesses before hand, and this helps with having good exchanges at the meeting. That way things also feel a lot less scripted and a lot more natural. She knows that Councillor Smith is busy but has seen him ask some really good questions before. Surely it would take only a little extra effort? Anyhow, dear scrutineer, let me ask you what you think. And yes, I do write my own questions…. If you would like to see/add any comments, I have posted this reflection on LinkedIn here. |
Dear scrutineer,
Get reflections like this straight to your inbox. I also share them on LinkedIn.
Dear scrutineer, here’s a question for you. Can you describe the difference between assurance and reassurance? Imagine that one day you are being interviewed by an inspector and they ask ‘how do you seek assurance? Or ’what gives you confidence that things are running as they should be?’ What might you reply? And my view? Well I’d start with this: Reassurance means that someone told me something and I trusted they were right. It’s a feeling. Assurance, on the other hand, means I’ve got good...
Is scrutiny a game? It’s an interesting one to ponder. Certainly, some seem to act as if it is. They play to win, whether for party political reasons or purely for control. Equivocation and even manipulation have been employed to achieve ‘victory’ for the executive or for the non-executive. But not every game is competitive. As you may know, dear scrutineer, there are also cooperative games and maybe scrutiny can be thought of in this way. I recently played my first cooperative board game....
Dear scrutineer, here is a little scrutiny geek’s quiz for you and your team. You can find this quiz and the answers on my website here. Enjoy! 1. In 1998, who said: “…making scrutiny the prime backbench function will cut the inordinate number of hours spent deliberating on committees” 2. Who, as Minster of State for Local Government, introduced what became the Local Government Act 2000 into the Commons and hence brought local government scrutiny into being? 3. Who gave their name to the UK...