[Matthew Garrard]

Steven Dugdale Wrote:if so, what restrictions were placed on the individual member in terms of participation in any subsequent study?

I'm curious,

- if a Member takes up an issue of concern to the community that he/she represents,

- tries to resolve it

- but can not get agreement from the service provider

- so they suggest it would make a good scrutiny item, gets it put on the agenda (CCfA)

- and wants to be involved with the review because its the least that his community would expect him to do.

Why would we restrict this and prevent them from representing their voters?

In a number of authorities Members can already place an item on the agenda (CCfA is just a renaming of it) and there are no restrictions to prevent them being involved in the discussion, why change that?

[Paul Dean]

I too am puzzled.

Do you mean restriction arising from a conflict of interest? We have had dicussion on this forum about the possible conflict of interest, say, a lead member may have when appearing at a scrutiny committing in response to a call in - and whether they would be allowed to stay or not. But I can't think of a parallel situation re CCfA. But then again it is Friday and it's been a long week.

[Keith Gordon]

I think Steven's question is a reasonable one.

If a member has fought a case on behalf of constituents through all available routes, but been unsuccessful, brings it to a scrutiny committee which sets up a three-man working party to carry out an examination, would it be good scrutiny to have the member as one of the working party?

Personally, I would want, of course, the member as a prime witness to the examination but I would expect him to give a perhaps one-sided account in favour of his constituents. Other witnesses might be able to bring other dimensions to the discussion and the working party would then decide where the balance lay for the council.

I am facing a possible examination of a fire service's proposal to close a local fire station. I would not think it a good idea for the local member who has led protests to sit on a working party. I think it would weaken the integrity of the scrutiny recommendations if the fire service came to the process knowing that one of the working party had clearly already made up his mind.

Scrutiny's credibility comes from an independent examination of evidence and should not become a just a stick to beat partners with. If the case is well made then a well argued and evidence supported report with supported recommendations could well change minds, on either side of the argument.

[Nick Beale]

kgordon Wrote:If a member has fought a case on behalf of constituents through all available routes, but been unsuccessful, brings it to a scrutiny committee which sets up a three-man working party to carry out an examination, would it be good scrutiny to have the member as one of the working party?

Personally, I would want, of course, the member as a prime witness.

What I tell people is that if they want to find out about a subject, then serve on the task group. If they want to advocate or advance a particular cause, then appear as witness.

[Matthew Garrard]

Nick Beale Wrote:What I tell people is that if they want to find out about a subject, then serve on the task group. If they want to advocate or advance a particular cause, then appear as witness.

I like that as advice to Members, but I would not want to make it a rule, in some cases it might undermine the review if a Member is so focused on the problem, but ultimately that's what they are elected to do, I can also foresee Members who will be willing to temper their views to get the whole story. Of course in a larger task group/committee those views would be tempered by having more Members.

[Keith Gordon]

I agree with Nick and Matt. I like Nick's succinct summary and I shall be using that in the future I am sure.

I take Matt's point and dilution with numbers. We tend to take most of our detailed examinations through a small working party so it is more significant but when the full committee (still only eight in our case) considers a matter I would not attempt to 'enforce' the witness issue.