[Ed Hammond]

Dave Mckenna Wrote:In the context of the forthcoming CfPS campaign on accountatbility I just wondered whether we are clear on the following questions (the issue came up at a training event yesterday):

1. Who do / should O&S Committees hold to account - cabinet members, chief officers, other officers or all three?

2. How can they hold chief officers to account if these officers are also advisors to the committees?

3. Holding to account usiually implies sanctions - but what are these?

4. How is this holding to account reflected in the portfolios of cabinet members or job descriptions of officers - if it isn't should it be?

In asking these questions I am wondering if we shouldn't be promoting a shared view - particularly as councillors and officers seem to have different perspectives on this.

There we are - something to chew over on a Friday afternoon!

Here's a quick response...

1) All three probably, plus some you haven't mentioned - partners, etc

2) With difficulty. If exec-side officers provide policy support, some fancy footwork has to be done to assure the independence of the function. But it is possible (some authorities do it, seemingly with some success - although we always think that dedicated support is the way to go)

3) Apart from reference to the Sec of State for health scrutiny in England, there aren't any. Scrutiny's power lies in persuasion and advice - great in theory, not so much fun in practice.

4) It isn't (by and large) and yes, it should be.

Does anyone else have any views, similar or different?

[Shelley Burke]

Dave Mckenna Wrote:In the context of the forthcoming CfPS campaign on accountatbility I just wondered whether we are clear on the following questions (the issue came up at a training event yesterday):

1. Who do / should O&S Committees hold to account - cabinet members, chief officers, other officers or all three?

2. How can they hold chief officers to account if these officers are also advisors to the committees?

3. Holding to account usiually implies sanctions - but what are these?

4. How is this holding to account reflected in the portfolios of cabinet members or job descriptions of officers - if it isn't should it be?

In asking these questions I am wondering if we shouldn't be promoting a shared view - particularly as councillors and officers seem to have different perspectives on this.

There we are - something to chew over on a Friday afternoon!

We are a hung council and obsessed with holding to account. Exec member interviews and call-ins are probably our members' favourite scrutiny activities.

So my answers are

1. Exec members and chief officers

2. I think our members have become quite sophisticated about switching mode according to the activity. They can ferociously question a chief officer without in any way casting doubt on their expertise and professionalism so the relationships are robust

3. A question and answer session with our OSC is sanction enough, I assure you. Especially at the moment as they morph into election mode.

4. Not sure about portfolios/JDs but there is a strong expectation on exec members and chief officers to take their holding to account sessions seriously. Their grilling at scrutiny is something to look forward to - if it aint hurting it aint working etc. And I have noticed they compare notes about how many questions they get from scrutiny.

Shelley Burke

LB Southwark