“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:

1. It’s more strategic. A single committee gets to see the big picture and can easily agree a coherent set of priorities. It can deal with the corporate objectives as a single set and the forward plan in the round.
2. It’s simpler. You have just one committee and fewer formal meetings so it’s not competing for attention. That makes life a lot easier for your Local Democracy Reporter and for the public.
3. As you have just one chair, they can have a more prominent role, internally and externally. Even better if they are from outside of the ruling group as this can offer greater credibility for governance arrangements - showing the executive welcomes independent challenge.
4. It’s more agile. You can flexibly set up different types of group or meeting for different purposes and bring things to a close whenever you need to (council size allowing). And, if things aren’t working, you can easily change - an opportunity for ‘test and learn’.
5. The resources you save from having fewer formal committee meetings might be used for more informal working. Building relationships, keeping in touch with communities, connecting with services through field trips and visits to other councils for example.
6. Also, you don’t waste resources on coordinating your multiple committees - no chairs coordinating group, no duplication , no ‘joint’ projects.

I’ve heard some counter points of course.

I know many like the idea of having different committees tracking different portfolios and I get that. If it’s a priority, though, you can still do this with a single committee. You can have a Q&A with the different portfolio holders at the main committee on a rota, for example. And you can set up panels that follow individual portfolios and report back.

A second, more tricky issue, is that you have only one chair who is paid a special responsibility allowance. This does seem out of balance with the executive although I wonder if it’s possible to be creative about this without undermining the status of the chair. Scrutiny done well takes a lot of time and commitment after all - this should be recognised where possible.

Ultimately, of course, culture eats structure for breakfast so make sure you get that right first!

What do you think?

By the way, you can find this post on LinkedIn here if you would like to see/add comments.