Agenda item

The Management Committee has been approached on a couple of occasions recently to appoint a scrutiny member to (executive) project boards on major  reviews of service. The issue of what the role is and the potential for conflict of interest has been raised for those that might be appointed.

The Chairman asked the Scrutiny Manager to provide guidance for the Management Committee. A short briefing note is attached.

The Management Committee has been approached on a couple of occasions recently to appoint a scrutiny member to (executive) project boards on reviews of Car Parking and Positive Leisure Time for Young People. In response, the Committee requested guidance be developed on the issue of what the role entails and the concern for potential for conflict of interest

A briefing note from the Scrutiny Manager was presented, detailing the background to the latest requests for scrutiny representation on project boards, past use of project boards with scrutiny representation and support that was provided. It was noted that the recent requests involved topics which were already the focus of existing task groups, and therefore the need to consider the respective roles of task group and scrutiny representative on the project board. The views of the Management Committee were sought on what future approach should be taken regarding project board representation and what guidance and structure would need to be in place.

The Committee discussed the briefing note and welcomed increased involvement of scrutiny at early stages of projects, but concerns were raised in a number of areas, including the following:

While Scrutiny involvement on project boards was seen as beneficial, that such representation was only at the invitation of the Cabinet Member was not seen as appropriate. It was also noted that the Committee had no indication how many project boards existed within the council.

The Committee discussed whether it was appropriate for a place for a Scrutiny representative on all project boards to be left open if required, or whether Scrutiny should be able to request there be a Scrutiny representative on a specific board if they felt it suitable to do so, in addition to or in place of a task group or other exercise, which might be constituted further into the project if deemed necessary. It was also raised that where invitations had been received, it should not be for a named member of scrutiny 

It was considered strongly that any representative from Scrutiny on a project board should be provided with clear guidance as to their role and need to retain a strategic rather than locally focused approach to the subject. Some members raised concerns that membership on the project board could be seen as a subject having been officially scrutinized despite single member involvement only, or that with existing task groups potentially receiving updates and questioning the Scrutiny representative on the project board, that this could replace or provide a buffer for working with and challenging the responsible Cabinet Member or Portfolio Holder, which would not be appropriate or effective scrutiny.

Other issues debated included the need for a clear reporting procedure either to committee or task group, and that when deciding which if any project boards a scrutiny representative should be included on, there should be a focus on the outcome that scrutiny wished to be achieved and what value would be added to the process, rather than being an additional part of the process adopted to little purpose depending on the subject.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

To request a further report with recommendations on possible approaches with regards Scrutiny representation on project boards, incorporating concerns raised above, in particular the need for a focus on outcomes, a clear remit for any member appointed to a project board, and a clear report process for that member.