SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 19 MARCH 2002

5.1

Members of this Committee have expressed concern about the resources available for Scrutiny and therefore their ability to carry out their new role.  It is less than a year since the Council adopted the Executive/Leader model and in that time the Executive and Scrutiny roles have been developing.  Both roles have demanded more resources than before but part of this is because of the monthly cycle compared to the previous six weeks cycle.

5.2

The guidance stated ‘To be effective overview and Scrutiny Committees must have effective and properly resourced support from officers’.  This has been recognised and it is Management Team’s intention to ensure this happens.  However, one of the real issues is that the scrutiny function has not developed in the way the legislation intended, and this may need a separate discussion.

5.3

To some extent Executive and Scrutiny still work in much the same way as the old Committee system and in respect of Scrutiny the skills needed by officers and members are different.  It is recognised that for small district councils this can be a real problem and was one of the reasons the 85,000 population limit was introduced in the structural change.

5.4

There are therefore a number of issues to consider in this report as follows:

a)     Organisation of the scrutiny function and current resources

b)     Executive/Scrutiny - Officer conflict

c)     Resource requirements/provision

     -     Committee services

     -     Lead Officer

     -     Professional input

     -     Budgets, information, training

5.5

A small survey has been carried out with similar districts to Chiltern and whilst one or two have similar concerns, the majority experienced no real problems with either resources or conflict, with officers dealing with both Executive and Scrutiny.   However a common theme is that Scrutiny is either not working in the way the government intended or ‘has not yet found its feet’.

a)     Organisation of the Scrutiny Function and Current Resources

     This operates with one main committee and two sub committees, one of which is dedicated to Best Value.  The Best Value Sub Committee is fully resourced with a dedicated Best Value Officer who in effect organises the function.  The Best Value Officer also reports to the Executive.

     The main committee has delegated its workload to the sub-committee who have formed small teams to look at a few projects.  The workload has been limited by stretched resources at the professional level and the best value reviews in progress.  The Sub Committee reports back to the main committee via the Vice Chairman or project leader.   This does lead to some duplication of effort and a more practical approach would be for the main committee to deal with the work programme and use the sub committee when it becomes stretched, or wants a specific project or research done in depth.

     The two call-ins have not created any resource issue but that may be the nature of the topics.  However, should this activity increase there could be serious consequences on staff resources/priorities.

     The Chairman and two vice chairmen have required guidance and assistance and this has been dealt with in the normal way, from either Committee Services or the lead officer (Chief Executive up to January 2002).

     From this summary the only resource issue to date is the workload of the professional officers in supporting the proposed work programme.  This is an inevitable problem in a small organisation and particularly so in the case of Chiltern, where the operational activities fall to a small number of individuals.  Major functions such as housing, leisure, refuse etc are all externalised and therefore the staff resources are limited to small numbers dealing with contract/performance management.

b)     Executive/Scrutiny - Officer Conflict

     Some members have expressed concern about this, and in some of the larger Councils, officers have been designated to either the Executive or Scrutiny roles.

c)     Resource Requirement/Provision

-     Committee Services

     This section has already dedicated a member of staff responsible for the scrutiny function.  This is no different from the previous dedicated provision for each Committee.  However in conversation with the Chairman and the need for more chairman/member input to the function, the Member Services Section will also provide secretarial and research assistance in the future.

-     Lead Officer

     It is important to have a lead officer both for Chairman/Member purposes and for support/guidance for officers.  Again in a small Council it is very difficult to separate responsibilities and in order to give Scrutiny the weight it deserves Management Team believe it should be one of themselves.  From February the task has been given to the Director of Corporate Services

-     Professional Input

     This has already been identified as the problem area and does need addressing. The Executive, PAGs, Best Value and day to day activities all demand time from the Heads of Service and staff; in particular where there are operational difficulties.  It is this latter point that could create the biggest problem as it is likely that Scrutiny will wish to look at a problematic area of operation.

     It is possible to consider the model adopted with Best Value where we have a dedicated Best Value Officer, but the main difference is that Best Value is a defined area of work with particular tasks to co-ordinate and carry out.   This is not the case with Scrutiny as it is wide ranging requiring different skills.   It is also unlikely to be a full time requirement.

     Consideration could therefore be given for Management Team to allocate a dedicated professional resource to Scrutiny, as opposed to Committee Services help, as part of the role of an existing member of staff.  This does not solve the issue of stretched resources at operational level but it does provide a focus for Management Team to decide priorities.  In the changes made last year in the Chief Executive’s Department it was assumed that part of the Policy and Project Post would be spent on Scrutiny.  However the scrutiny role of this post has not really developed with most of the time being spent on the Community Plan and performance indicators.

     Alternatively we could continue as at present but be more aware of the need to equalise resources between the Executive and Scrutiny.  This is a feasible approach but does depend upon the Scrutiny programme of work and a reduction (or no increase) in the amount of PAG work.

-     Budgets, Information

     There is no specific budget for Scrutiny apart from the budget held by Members Services for all Member/Council activities.  This has not caused any problems to date.   Information is available for all members either thorough Members Services, Customer Services, Website or Directorates.  Again this is not specific to Scrutiny, but if particular ‘scrutiny information’ needs developing then we will need to consider how to provide it.

a)     Do you think Scrutiny is working at Chiltern yet?   Should the main Committee do more?

b)     Officers act impartially between Scrutiny and the Executive.  Does this cause concern?

c)     Member Services will provide a dedicated resource for the administration of Scrutiny.

d)     The lead officer is one of the Directors.

e)     Would the Committee prefer a dedicated P/T officer from the current establishment or continue as at present with the recognition of equality with the Executive resources?

Contact Officers:  Alan Goodrum (01494 732001 and Gill Gowing (01494 732052)

Item 53 on the Executive Agenda for 12 March 2002 is a Key Decision not in the Forward Plan.

The Chairman of Scrutiny was advised under Rule 12 of the Scrutiny Procedure rules that this was an urgent item and that his request was needed in order to proceed.

A copy of the letter from the Chief Executive and the response from the Chairman is attached at Appendix 6.1 and 6.2.

The Committee’s VIEWS are requested on this issue.