Promoting the value of scrutiny and accountability
in modern and effective government


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Christmas
18-12-2009, 12:27 PM
Post: #1
RE: Christmas
Hi Ed,

We're going through a restructure - sorry, a Transformation - at present. There are proposals to reduce the scrutiny support by 50%. One heartening element to this has been the apparent and vocal support from Members about the support they receive from the Scrutiny Team.

I have a query for you and those in other authorities about what the level of scrutiny involvement is generally as these restructures gather pace. The grey area seems to be in that where the restructure process is owned by the Chief-Executive, he or she can argue that it is really about the management of the authority and so should not necessarily be scrutinised in any detailed way. Against this, of course, where significant cuts are being made or changes to the way that authority works are being implemented then it is changing the nature, role and capabilities of the organisation - and becomes an implicit policy change. Where this is the case, should there not be an opportunity for Scrutiny Members to subject the proposals to some questioning and analysis?

So, I suppose my question is - what scrutiny have authorities been doing on the restructure/savings schemes being made and do their scrutiny Members consider it adequate?

Cheers

Dave Taylor

Carlisle
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2009, 04:24 PM
Post: #2
RE: Christmas
It is entirely appropriate for scrutiny to look at internal organisational change. As you say, these kinds of changes have a significant impact on the ability of the organisation and its partners to deliver services. While scrutiny is not in a position to look at individual appointments, nothing else should be off limits.

At my old authority we did a short - but extremely painful - review into the council's middle-management review (unfortunately abbreviated to MMR). The MMR process was a tough one for the council and for staff and the council were keen to just move on from it. But scrutiny helped to improve the process, and future re-orgs too, by investigating the shortcomings that had become apparent through the investigation.

I know there are other examples but can't think of any off the top of my head - I will have a look, although you will have to remind me about this in the New Year as I am leaving the office soon!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | Centre For Public Scrutiny | Return to Top | Return to Content | RSS Syndication