Current Arrangement – Model A

 

Pros

·      Member involvement

·      Use of Councillor call for action gives O & S power but has been underused

·      O & S is counterweight to executive powers

·      “A” distances the adversarial aspect from PAC processes

·      Separate O & S enabled detailed consultations with invited guests

·      Takes a wider view

·      Current system does seem to work

 

Cons

·         CLA PAC has a very tight agenda

·         You can do more O & S if O & S spread through PACs

·         One PAC too many

·         Low decision making ratio

·         Lots of places need to be filled

·         Too many people on O & S

·         Possibly less expertise in O & S unless unique appointments made

·         O & S doing too much work which isn’t related to Council business

·         Failure is scrutiny of non-corporate items e.g. Economic Regeneration, future of Leisure Centre, 1000 affordable homes

·         Disconnect of knowledge between PACs and second tier

·         Wrong – less informed councillors making decisions

·         Delay between PAC recommendations and Cabinet making decision

·         Cabinet is not making decisions and therefore not much to PACs to advise on

·         More member involvement must entail longer time to decide

·         System not tested because very few call ins on member requests

 

 

Model B

Cabinet plus Policy Advisory Scrutiny Committees

 

Pros

·         Increased member involvement and expertise

·         With fewer councillors it will reduce burden on individual councillors. 24 less committee places to fill.

·         Need for task and finish to enhance decisions

·         CLA agenda is frequently too light so good idea to combine

·         Offers opportunity to review policy with a committee.

·         PACS can have a scrutiny function

·         Nice and simple

·         Could you keep on here in reserve as overall OSC for cross council issues e.g. climate change/biodiversity

·         Should committees be 11 rather than 9 to ensure full councillor involvement

·         Supervisor to current structure enables more scrutiny than now

·         Need to have 4 PACs as losing current OSC

·         ?will opposition group members chair as a counter balance?

 

Cons

·         O & S is too remote

·         Which overview & scrutiny members take precedence/authority? Cabinet O & S

·         This would be five down to three. Would this make meetings too packed?

 

Model C

Cabinet and Overview & Scrutiny Committee

 

·         Going from 5 committees – 3!! 4 OSC

·         Corp SVC

·         Community, Housing and Health

·         Communities, Leisure, Arts, Econ Dev (open spaces, parks etc)

·         Planning Infrastructure

 

Pros

·         Less burden on individual councillors to man/staff

·         If no Overview Scrutiny Committee need to maintain 4 Committees to give sufficient review

·         9 is better for decision making

·         Opportunity for large policy review but at cost of giving advice to Cabinet on general policy issues

·         None we could find

 

Cons

·         If only 3 Committees need 11 or more Councillors to ensure most councillors can have an input

·         Lack of transparency up to 90%

·         Describes not subject to Cllr input except Cabinet

·         Process becomes too drawn out

·         Increasing number of urgent Decisions which would lead to uninformed decision taking

·         No pre-decision scrutiny

·         Poorly framed decisions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model D

Cabinet and One Overview and Scrutiny Committee

 

Pros

·         Reduced clearing time

·         Less printing cost and paperwork

·         Greener

·         If only 1 Committee would need say 19 so could have multiple teams working

·         Simple for public/residents to follow and understand

·         Could have sub-committees

 

Cons

·         No!

·         No input into general decision making

·         No, as good as Option B

·         High workload for O & S – too much!

·         Only 20 Members are front and centre

·         No check and balance - pre scrutiny

·         Too many call-ins

·         Minimal Member involvement

·         Little Member involvement

·         No presenting ideas

·         If you are not on Overview and Scrutiny or in Cabinet you are excluded (yes not democratic)

·         Very little Member input

 

Model E

Cabinet plus Cabinet Advisory Committees and OSC

 

Perfect – however more required on O & S to ensure better representation of all Groups

 

Pros

·         Subject to the CACS being politically balanced

·         If CAC had ability to question Cabinet member

·         Good acronrym for Committees

·         Leader will always support this option – pro for Leader

 

Cons

·         How can you have an OSC of only 4 members

·         Any role for opposition parties/groups

·         Still only an advisory role

·         Inefficient, ineffective similar to what we have now

·         Leader would put Chair forward for each CAC

·         Leader still has too much power

·         Dominant party could manipulate decision making process

·         KCC model – does it work there? – not sure it does!

·         Why should Leader decide on Committees and whose on them!

·         Is KCC really a role model?!