We all care about scrutiny...
Scrutiny is a cornerstone of democratic accountability — a mechanism to challenge decisions, hold executives to account, and ensure public resources are used effectively. When done well, it shapes policy, contributes to direction setting and amplifies the voice and concerns of the public in local decision making.
The essence of good scrutiny is impact. How have we made a difference for people? How are services best meeting the needs of the most vulnerable? What direction is the organisation taking, and how do we know that it is the right one?
In the quest to find answers to these questions there can be a desire to expand the scrutiny footprint. To add more meetings, more reports, more items on the agenda with the hope that this will automatically lead to better scrutiny. This response is understandable, but it may be confusing activity with impact, and can undermine the very goals it is seeking to achieve.
More meetings do not necessarily equate to more meaningful oversight. In fact, when overview and scrutiny becomes a treadmill of overloaded agendas and relentless reporting cycles, it can quickly, but unintentionally, lead to superficiality.
There can be a sense that committees race through packed sessions, attempting to cover too much, too fast. Important topics are skimmed, nuance is lost, and the opportunity for real challenge and meaningful recommendations can evaporate.
This creates a scenario where the volume of scrutiny increases — but its value diminishes. Members become overwhelmed. Officers are overtasked. Committee papers run to hundreds of pages, which take days to produce and longer to digest. And communities, despite seeing the visible machinery of governance turning, can remain unconvinced that it is producing real change. In some cases, scrutiny is diminished to a clearing house, seeing the same reports and ‘rubber stamping’ just before they go to cabinet.
Illusions of accountability
This is where the danger lies — in mistaking activity for impact. When scrutiny is judged by how many hours are spent in meetings, how many reports are requested, or how thick the agenda pack is, we confuse the accountability’s form with its function.
These are the illusions of accountability — structures that give the appearance of rigorous oversight without delivering substance. A busy scrutiny calendar can mask a lack of focus or impact. Lengthy meetings can create a perception of thoroughness, even when questions are generic and outcomes vague. Scrutiny becomes procedural rather than purposeful. It becomes performative governance — well-intentioned but ultimately limited in what it achieves.
Members are often aware that their scrutiny is not achieving the accountability that they desire. However, this frustration can in turn lead to a doubling down on trying to do more.
Quality not quantity
Effective scrutiny isn’t about quantity. It’s about purpose: selecting issues strategically, allocating time proportionately, and asking questions that are informed, relevant, and likely to shape outcomes.
This kind of scrutiny is not always visible. It happens in careful preparation, in informal engagement, in work planning that sets priorities based on impact rather than convenience. It thrives on relationships — between members, officers, and communities — and it follows through to ensure recommendations are not just noted but result in meaningful action.
True scrutiny is not reactive. It’s reflective. And most importantly, it’s focused.
From more to meaningful
Shifting the culture of scrutiny means letting go of the assumption that more automatically means better. Instead:
- Focus on fewer, higher-impact issues: Prioritisation is not a weakness. It’s how scrutiny becomes effective. Saying ‘no’ is a strength.
- Value depth over breadth: Rushed discussions rarely produce insight. Time is a prerequisite for challenge. This extends to enough time before decisions are taken to meaningfully incorporate scrutiny reflections.
- Support members meaningfully: Councillors need the time, tools, and officer support to engage properly — not just to attend meetings, but to understand the issues and shape the agenda.
This is not about doing less. It’s about doing scrutiny differently. Not cutting back, but focusing in. Not producing more paperwork, but more insight. Not performing accountability, but achieving it.
The purpose of scrutiny
Good scrutiny will not be achieved through an endless cycle of meetings. It will come from building scrutiny approaches that prioritise depth over breadth, relationships over the reactionary, listening over lecturing, and outcomes over optics. It must be seen not as a bureaucratic hurdle, but as a tool for better governance — not a place where issues go as a tick-box exercise, but where they are clarified, challenged, and improved.
Of course, much of this is hard to put into practice. But we know that things like work programming and prioritisation, questioning skills and access to good information can play their part – it’s why, at CfGS, we’re focusing on developing learning guides, events and other resources that help.
So let’s resist the temptation to measure scrutiny by its volume. Let’s move beyond the illusions of accountability. And let’s build systems that prioritise quality, clarity, and change.
In the end, the goal isn’t more meetings — it’s better outcomes.
All news