“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 only having a couple of items and having the feeling that things have been properly looked into. Or maybe even changed.

You’ve probably heard of the two-item rule? The idea that a two-hour scrutiny meeting should have no more than two substantive items, with perhaps 45 minutes for each.

Stating the rule is easy, of course. Putting it into practice is much harder. In fact, taking control of the scrutiny work plan and identifying priorities might be among the most difficult things a scrutineer has to do.

And it’s perhaps unsurprising that the conveyor belt effect can be seen in so many scrutiny meetings.

There are many pressures, many ‘things that scrutiny has to look at’. Things on the executive’s forward plan. Before we even get to the things that scrutiny wants to look at.

So how might the two item rule be applied?

Well, many will have a pre-agenda meeting for the chair, vice chair and officers to discuss the agenda of the next meeting. They can consider what’s in the annual work plan, what scrutiny is being asked to look at by officers and what’s coming up in the executive’s forward plan.

They may also have had a work plan discussion with the committee at the previous meeting to help inform their decisions.

Of course it helps to have an annual work plan and, although some seem to get by fine without one, it can be helpful to have a broad conversation, once a year, to set the broad strategy for the committee.

And what to do with the items that don’t make the cut?

Well, items might be added to the back of the agenda ‘for information’ and therefore shared but not considered at the meeting.

Items might be ‘pipelined’ to be considered at a future meeting.

Or it might simply be a case of saying no, as hard as that might be.

Ultimately, I guess, it’s about making hard choices.

Thinking about which items have strategic importance for residents, which items come with a pressing concern and which are already being dealt with elsewhere.

And remember, ownership of the work programme is not just about having impact and knowing how you expect to make a difference. It’s also how scrutineers demonstrate their independent-mindedness.

So, if your scrutiny meeting is a like a conveyor belt, remember that it doesn’t have to be that way.

I hope this was useful to reflect on 🙏