Decision details

The Committee considered possible recommendations for the review derived from the self-evaluation scoring matrix comments.

The following recommendations were agreed:

Work Programming:

(i)            Use the Customer Service Centre & Satisfaction Surveys data as a source to generate local issues to scrutinise;

(ii)          Work with Scrutiny Members to capture their ideas – possibly with a one day event to gather ideas rather than relying on the current survey;

(iii)         Address the problem of the lag in the system – describe as a rolling work programme that items can drop off and be added to during the year but still be published in the spring

(iv)         The process must be Member led with Scrutiny Members having the last word on subjects to scrutinise

(v)          The Communications Team should be asked to advise on what is trending on social media.

Scoping:

(i)           That prior to a review starting, a short introductory background presentation detailing the issues around the scrutiny be brought to Members, this would help all Members but especially new Councillors who may not be familiar with the issues and process

(ii)          An updated scoping document identifying the changes, should be provided at strategic points during a review, reflecting on any changes of focus or additions and what has been achieved so far

(iii)         That all Scrutiny Members be given the chance to comment on the scope

Evidence Gathering/site visits/interviews:

(i)            Promote ways to engage more with the public in the evidence gathering process

(ii)          Provide a range of options including some evenings for Member site visits

(iii)         Provide opportunities to engage with all Scrutiny Members on a Committee and acknowledge Members who take a lead role in a specific issue the review.

Final Reports and recommendations

(i)            Review final reports should incorporate fewer, SMART, recommendations relevant to the objective of the Scrutiny, to maintain the review’s impact (where possible these could be grouped together)

(ii)          That a process be drawn together to invite comment from all Scrutiny Members regarding the final report and recommendations – (possibly an item on an agenda with draft recommendations for comment and amendment prior to the publishing of the final report)

Monitoring Recommendations:

(i)            That officers are expected to adopt recommendations that are in scrutiny reports once agreed with the relevant Portfolio Holder, but that this should be acknowledged in responses and not passed off as being current practise when it is actually in response to the review.

(ii)          Executive responses should be displayed prominently on the Council’s web site (in addition to just being published with an agenda on the web site).

(iii)         Following a review the loop should be closed by providing feedback to

witnesses and with any tenants or members of the public who have contributed via a satisfaction survey.

Additional Recommendations:

(i)            That an action tracker be reported to each Committee meeting to enable the monitoring of outcomes and recommendations from previous reviews;

(ii)          That the Portfolio Holder Advisory Groups be Chaired by Scrutiny Members as a Pre Scrutiny Advisory Group, which could include the Executive Portfolio Holder as a key contributor answering questions along with the relevant Assistant Director, prior to the Policy being considered at the Executive.