Bryn Roberts - Director of Governance and Monitoring Officer
Introduction
Following a change in political leadership and findings from an LGA Corporate Peer Challenge, City of York Council recognised the need to strengthen its governance, culture, and member support – particularly around its overview and scrutiny function. In response, the Council commissioned CfGS to carry out a full Scrutiny Impact Review (SIR) review.
The aim was to reset and rationalise the scrutiny function to make it more focused, effective, and impactful. Using CfGS’s SIR methodology, an assessment was made of organisational commitment, member leadership, work planning, and overall effectiveness. At the time, York operated four scrutiny committees supported by task and finish groups, but without dedicated policy officer support – an issue addressed as part of the review.
Background and context
A survey of City of York Council councillors, undertaken as part of the CfGS review, found that members felt there was a significant gap between the structure of scrutiny and its actual impact. Although the Council had maintained a framework for scrutiny over many years, members thought that it was scrutiny in name only, with very little effective challenge or oversight taking place. Members said that they often became lost in the detail, spending a lot of time examining operational minutiæ without translating that into strategic influence or improvement. This narrow focus on specifics, rather than the broader picture, meant that scrutiny was not driving better decision-making or council performance. It made scrutiny feel busy but ultimately disconnected from real outcomes.
A deeper cultural problem of the Council’s internal dynamics also posed challenges. Members acknowledged that officers were often met with suspicion, not on a party-political basis, but due to a breakdown of trust between councillors and officers. This made it difficult for internal reviews to gain traction or credibility.
These cultural and structural issues behind how York Council had been operating were longstanding, embedded over at least a decade, and seen as features of the organisation’s culture. Compared to other councils, York had significantly more formal meetings (four scrutiny committees, each scheduled to hold ten meetings a year, plus ad-hoc meetings), and only a few of these delivered meaningful outcomes.
Addressing this environment and demonstrating that such practices were not the norm elsewhere was a key part of beginning the journey towards a more effective scrutiny function, better decisions and improved services. An independent external review was arranged with CfGS, providing an impartial perspective and ensuring councillors from all sides could engage with the Scrutiny Review, free from concerns about internal bias.
The challenge here was not just technical but cultural: to shift mindsets, rebuild confidence in scrutiny’s purpose, and demonstrate that more effective, outcome-focused scrutiny was both possible and necessary.
Challenges and Opportunities
Through the review, three overriding challenges were identified:
Many members did not fully understand the actual purpose of scrutiny, including how it should operate as a tool for strategic oversight and improvement, rather than simply reviewing operational detail or receiving information. This misunderstanding limited the success and impact of scrutiny activity across the Council.
Officers were caught on a treadmill of scrutiny, with constant demands for reports and briefings that left little room for in-depth work or genuine support for scrutiny’s aims. The endless production of reports and paperwork consumed significant officer time and energy, without delivering proportionate value.
A significant culture change was needed among members themselves. There was a strong tendency to continue with established habits and approaches, rather than adapting to more modern, outcome-focused models of scrutiny that other councils have successfully embraced.
Opening doors for change
Alongside the challenges, the review also highlighted important areas for positive change.
The key opportunity was the chance to reshape how scrutiny was supported and delivered. By reducing the number of formal scrutiny meetings and committees, the Council could significantly ease the administrative burden on Democratic Services Officers (DSOs). This freed-up capacity opened paved the way to reinvesting in a dedicated scrutiny officer role, providing members with stronger, more focused support to carry out scrutiny in the way it was originally intended by legislation.
In turn, this would not only allow members to engage in scrutiny more strategically and meaningfully but also strengthen the ability of officers to support scrutiny properly, rather than being stretched thin across a constant cycle of report production. Which did not result in good scrutiny. Reducing the demands on DSOs created a virtuous cycle: fewer, more focused meetings; better officer support; and more effective scrutiny.
While the main opportunities had been anticipated, there was a pleasant surprise in the level of support from members for meaningful change. Despite the Council’s historically cautious culture, members across the political spectrum openly acknowledged that scrutiny was not working properly and recognised the need for reform. This created an unexpected open door for change. The fact that both the Leader of the Council and the Chair of the primary scrutiny committee were able to jointly propose a substantial shift – reducing the number of scrutiny committees and meetings – was a significant and encouraging development for the future of scrutiny at York.
Initiatives and Actions Taken
The review focused on having open conversations and involving as many people as possible.
Talking with members and chairs
There were lots of discussions with the chair of scrutiny, the chairs of the panels, and officers. It wasn’t just about gathering information – it was also about helping them understand that the problems they were seeing were because scrutiny wasn’t working as it should. By sharing examples from other councils, it was easier for people to see that there were better ways of doing things.
Inviting feedback from all councillors
Every councillor was invited to give their views. Some dedicated sessions were set up, but there was also a conscious effort to go to where people already were – like attending a Labour Group meeting to catch everyone together. This made it easier for busy councillors to take part without adding extra meetings.
Getting officers involved
Officers from Democratic Services and across the council were asked for their thoughts too. This meant the review didn’t just reflect the views of councillors but also picked up what officers thought was working – and what wasn’t.
Keeping the project moving
The day-to-day work was led by the deputy monitoring officer, who focused on what positive changes could come out of the review. Having someone managing it closely helped keep things practical and realistic. Making it as open and inclusive as possible helped build trust and made it more likely that people would back the changes that were needed.
Outcomes and Impact
The decision to implement changes to the Council’s scrutiny committees has been made, with full Council approval. These changes will take effect at the annual meeting, which is in about four weeks. The process is now underway to calculate the political balance and adjust how the new system will work. The biggest shift will be a significant reduction in the number of member meetings – from 40 a year down to just 15. This reduction will be a big help for everyone involved especially senior officers who have been stretched thin with the previous structure.
Under the old system, some chief officers were expected to attend up to three different scrutiny committees in one cycle. That meant potentially attending 30 meetings a year, each with their own reports to prepare. When you have that many meetings on the calendar, it’s hard to find time for anything else. Now, with fewer meetings, senior managers will have more time to focus on their actual work, which will make a noticeable difference.
In terms of impact on the organisation, there’s been a real change in culture. A key outcome of the review process was the way both the Labour Group and the Lib Dem Group came together to find common ground. These two groups are the lead party and the principal opposition, so you might expect them to be at odds, but in this case, they worked together effectively. They managed to look past their political differences and focus on what the Council actually needed to improve its scrutiny process. This was a real achievement, especially considering the different political positions they each represent.
One of the factors that helped achieve this consensus was the involvement of an external party, who had no political stake in the outcome. As mentioned, the external perspective was incredibly valuable because it provided a “blank canvas” for the review. With no agenda other than improving the system, the external team was able to compare the Council’s practices to best practices from other councils. This allowed them to highlight areas where things didn’t make sense or where there was room for improvement and ultimately guide the Council towards a more efficient way of working.
So, while it’s early to see the full impact, the changes are already making a difference. There’s a clear sense of collaboration now, and the streamlined process will help everyone focus on what really matters – making decisions that serve the community better. With fewer meetings and a clearer structure, the Council will be able to function more effectively, and that’s something that will benefit everyone involved.
Top tips
Bryn’s practical advice, strategies and recommendations based on recent experience.
- Be clear about why you’re doing it and what the problem is
The most important thing is to understand what the issue is before jumping into a solution. Don’t go in with a fixed idea of how to fix the problem. Instead, approach the review with an open mind. The solution will emerge naturally once you’re clear about the issues at hand. The key is to identify where things are going wrong and ask, “How can we make this better?” When you allow the experts – both officers and Members – to come together, a more holistic solution will be found. - Don’t prejudge the outcome
Avoid going into the process with a preconceived notion of what changes need to happen. If you go in thinking, “I need to make them do A, B, and C,” you’re already setting limits on the discussion. Instead, approach it with a mindset of understanding what’s not working and how things can be improved. This will encourage open, collaborative discussions, rather than a one-sided push for change. - Make it a collaborative process
It’s important that everyone involved – from senior officers to Members – is part of the process. By working together to identify issues and propose solutions, the outcome becomes a collective decision. This way, it’s not just about imposing changes, but rather about making decisions that everyone feels part of and can support. - Be prepared for the long haul
A scrutiny review can take time, and it’s essential to be patient with the process. Change doesn’t happen overnight, and sometimes the best solutions come from thorough discussion and reflection. Allow space for this process to unfold properly. - Lots of tea and biscuits
As light-hearted as this sounds, the reality is that a comfortable and welcoming environment can help encourage open discussions.
Future Directions
Any plans the organisation has for building on the work they’ve done and how they intend to sustain improvements.
Looking ahead, the hope for York is that the preparation cycle for committees will become easier and more streamlined. The goal is to have a committee group that is not just focused on reviewing information, but one that is actively making a positive difference. Instead of simply finding information fascinating, the aim is for committees to engage in meaningful discussions that lead to real change.
Once the scrutiny officer is in post, they will be able to offer direct assistance to the committees. This will bring back the days when a scrutiny officer would support a committee by writing proper reports on topics that highlight areas where the Council can improve. This is the core purpose of scrutiny – to offer constructive recommendations for improvement. At the very least, the scrutiny officer’s role will help ensure that these discussions are more focused and productive, ultimately benefitting the Council and the community.
Another transition will involve stepping outside the confines of formal meetings. Instead of thinking that all important work must be done in front of the public, webcasted and recorded, there’s recognition that a lot of valuable work can take place in less formal settings. Working groups, where members can sit and discuss matters in a more relaxed environment, can be just as effective, if not more so, in making real progress.
This approach is a new way of thinking for the Council, but it has the potential to be a game-changer in how York approaches scrutiny and decision-making moving forward.
NOTE
At CfGS, we support local government improvement by working closely with councils to highlight the great work being done.
As part of this support, we produce case studies to share the lessons learned from these projects, helping other authorities benefit from the insights gained. These case studies are a collaborative effort between CfGS and the councils involved, and while they provide valuable perspectives, they are not formal evaluations of the work’s impact. Instead, they aim to inspire and inform other authorities with real examples of progress that can have a wider impact across the sector.
All case studies