You be the judge: Should the cabinet member sit in on every scrutiny meeting?
You be the judge: Should the cabinet member sit in on every scrutiny meeting? THE PROSECUTION: VICE CHAIR JO“Councillor Pete is one of the Cabinet Members for my scrutiny committee and he sits in on every meeting. I’m taking over as chair next year and I’ve told him I’d rather he only came to the committee when we invite him. The committee meets in the councillor chamber and sits in the bottom row, in a horseshoe. Councillor Pete sits a couple of rows back for every meeting. Sometimes the chair lets him contribute on something. I’d prefer it if we were set up like a select committee with the cabinet member only there when they are invited to attend. I’d like to see the cabinet member physically in front of the committee, at a separate table. It just blurs the roles with the cabinet member sat where he is. It must be confusing for the public. He looks like an advisor rather than the person we are holding to account. I’m sure there is no bad intention on Councillor Pete’s part, and I appreciate the time he gives to scrutiny, but I can’t help thinking that it must affect some of the committee members, particularly those in his own party. He is literally sat behind a couple of them! Every now and then the chair allows him to offer what he calls a ‘clarification to help the committee’, sometimes at the request of one the members. Half of the members then have to turn round to listen and the whole thing feels like a bit of side show, and nobody is sure if they should ask him anything or not. It’s just confusing. THE DEFENCE: CABINET MEMBER PETE“I don’t know what all the fuss is about, I really don’t. I’m not sitting with the committee, I sit a couple of rows back so it’s clear I’m not a committee member. I’m very careful not to ask any questions, but sometimes I know I have something to share that will be helpful, perhaps something that the officers can’t really talk about. And it’s always at the discretion of the chair, of course. What’s helpful for me is hearing the reports being presented, seeing how they go down and listening to the concerns that the members have. When the recommendations come to me from the committee, I feel I am in a better position to engage with them having heard the debate and understood where the recommendations have come from. I don’t accept what Vice Chair Jo implies about influencing the committee. I’ve been very clear that the scrutiny members must be independent minded and do their job without fear or favour. I’ve never spoken to anyone individually about anything they have said in a scrutiny meeting and I’m sure I won’t in future. Look, I’m very happy to sit in front of the committee for anything that I’m responsible for but I don’t see what the problem is with me listening in on everything else. It’s been suggested that I sit in the public gallery or even watch on YouTube! But that doesn’t seem right at all. Well, if you were on the jury, what would you say? If you would like to see / add comments, you can see this reflection on LinkedIn here. |
Dear scrutineer,
Get reflections like this straight to your inbox. I also share them on LinkedIn.
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...
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....