As you know, dear scrutineer, I do like a metaphor, and I’d like you to try this one for size: local government scrutiny as an iceberg. The idea is a simple one, the public meetings are visible, but more than two thirds of the work is done below the surface and can’t be seen from outside

This reflects a relational view of scrutiny where most of the effort is put into the informal working and relationship building that creates the conditions for the public meetings to be productive. 

Rather than ’turn up and talk’, scrutiny councillors are arriving at meetings after a process of preparing and engaging - the tip of a much larger iceberg.

Here’s how it works for me.

The bit above the water, in public view, is the formal business of scrutiny. This where the accountability dialogue between the executive and scrutiny councillors takes place in public meetings [1].  

Just below the water is where the committee prepares. Crucially, away from public view, scrutiny councillors can deliberate, across party lines, to develop new topics, lines of inquiry, conclusions and recommendations. 

Below that is the bulk of the relational work. This is the level of engagement that underpins everything else. This might involve talking to executives about possible topics or ongoing inquiries. Or perhaps chats with service departments or partners. Or the important business of keeping in touch with residents and service users - via field trips or other methods. Either way, those cups of tea, quick chats and ‘just a quick update’ emails is the fuel powering the scrutiny process.

Ah, but what about transparency? I hear you say.

As Jane Mansbridge has argued, sometimes delicate negotiations need to take place in private rather than in the goldfish bowl of a public meeting. Where transparency has a cost, she argues, we should favour instead ‘transparency in rationale’ which makes visible ‘procedures, information, reasons, and the facts on which the reasons are based’ [2].

In an iceberg model, transparency can still be served as long as careful reporting of the ‘below the surface’ work is done by the public meetings.

Of course, one interesting dynamic of the iceberg model is the need to focus resources on the informal work at the expense of the formal. This can be counterintuitive to those who associate more effective scrutiny with more public committee meetings. As resources are always limited, more committees might, ironically, mean less productive scrutiny. 

By the way, you can see/add comments on LinkedIn here.

[1] see Jane Martin (2006), Overview and Scrutiny as a Dialogue of Accountability for Democratic Local Government, Public Policy and Administration, Vol 21 No. 3

[2] Jane Mansbridge (2009). A “selection model” of political representation. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(4)