It is good to see James Powney LINK responding to the 'clarification' of Scrutiny proposals which I published from a source very close to Brent Labour earlier LINK
Like me he can see no reference to this detail in the Officer's Report going before Full Council tomorrow and remarks:
He goes on:
I hope backbench Labour councillors and the opposition take note and speak up tomorrow.
If you need any persuasion of the confusing aspects of the Scrutiny changes and perhaps evidence of the haste in which they have been prepared see the Supplementary Agenda LINK. Particularly important noteworthy are pages 30 and 48.
If you wish to attend the Full Council on Wednesday as a member of the public you are advised to let Anne Reid of Democratic Services know, as the number of seats is limited: anne.reid@brent.gov.uk
Like me he can see no reference to this detail in the Officer's Report going before Full Council tomorrow and remarks:
If Martin's source is knowledgeable, I wonder whether these are last minute changes to mitigate the apparent intention of removing the operations of the Council from effective scrutiny. It all seems a very hole-in-the-corner way of doing things.He says that the requirement that questions to Cabinet members at Full Council be submitted in advance, and without follow-up questions allowed, will mean that officers will write the answers and they will be read out by the lead members'
He goes on:
All this strikes me as a far cry from how things should be done. I have suggested that there are three objectives Scrutiny should aim at. The Welsh National Audit Office has recently gone through a more elaborate analysis. What the balance between is is an area where I can imagine lots of different points of view, but it is essentially a matter for political value judgements, not simply a technical issue. Therefore, it should be the subject of a proper debate and decision by councillors, not simply presented to them as a fait accompli within a fortnight of election.I agree completely that a proper report, detailing the proposals and setting out how lay committee members would be recruited is essential for proper consideration of the Scrutiny proposals. Far reaching Scrutiny proposals approved without proper scrutiny would open the Council up to ridicule.
The elected members of the Council should give themselves time to discuss how they want Scrutiny to function, and what they decide should be laid out clearly, not anonymously communicated to Martin Francis.
I hope backbench Labour councillors and the opposition take note and speak up tomorrow.
If you need any persuasion of the confusing aspects of the Scrutiny changes and perhaps evidence of the haste in which they have been prepared see the Supplementary Agenda LINK. Particularly important noteworthy are pages 30 and 48.
If you wish to attend the Full Council on Wednesday as a member of the public you are advised to let Anne Reid of Democratic Services know, as the number of seats is limited: anne.reid@brent.gov.uk