7 things #Manchester City Council will not do to improve scrutiny of its Executive and officers

Manchester City Council has 96 councillors. At the moment Labour has 86 councillors out of that number. After the May 22nd elections, it will be 95 and a half. One Party State, much?

So, the “scrutiny” process – whereby councillors (and, theoretically, members of the public) ask awkward questions of the 9 member Executive and paid officials – becomes even more crucial.

Sadly, it is utterly broken, an empty ritual played for laughs and sycophancy.

There are various reasons for this, asides from Labour’s iron grip (the hollowing out of the local state, the death of local media, the collapse of civil society institutions, “bowling alone” etc.).

surveybycouncilAnyway, enough with the context. The City Council’s “scrutiny team” have circulated a survey to anyone who attended any of the six scrutiny committees’ 10-or-so meetings in the last year. It is, as you’d expect if you’d ever been to a meeting, very detailed, geared to insiders rather than outsiders, procedurally “correct” and yet/because of this, baffling, intimidating and demoralising.

At the end (if you can get that far without killing yourself), they ask you to
“Please describe any other ways in which you think scrutiny could be improved in Manchester”.

Ha. Haha. How long have you got? Well, here’s 7, in no particular order. There are hella more, but since these ideas will be ignored regardless, I ain’t gonna waste much more time.

a) Use social media – at the very least Twitter, Facebook and Youtube – to publicise the agendas of the six scrutiny committee meetings a week in advance, with ALL THE PAPERS having a brief description of each paper on one single web-page, instead of in six different pdfs. This makes it easy for people interested in scrutiny to alert their friends who might be specifically interested in issue x or x. Here’s one MCFly made earlier.

b) Create an email subscription system whereby people can express interest in being kept informed about specific items of interest [housing, recycling, digital economy etc etc etc], so they know when reports are coming to scrutiny (or, more often, being delayed/deferred/ignored.)

c) create an easily searchable database of upcoming reports etc (the “forward plan”) , with a traffic light system to indicate when they are constantly being kicked into the long grass (e.g. the Finance Scrutiny Committee’s promised report on how other councils with a preponderance of one party cope with that).

d) Set up a seventh scrutiny committee specifically designed to examining and IMPROVING the Council’s diabolical under-performance (and that’s a kind interpretation) on all matters environmental (biodiversity as well as climate), with non-council members of that committee, such as proper independent scientists. Here’s some terms of reference for such a committee.

e) Create simple videos that explain the remit and function of each of the scrutiny committees. Many people in Manchester have poor reading skills, and are intimidated/baffled by the dense and arcane jargon that the Council uses. Videos would dent that fog. Here’s one MCFly made earlier. And another. There are others. And god forbid that you actually video and audio record the proceedings. Or livestream them. I mean, it’s not as if this is the 21st century, or that Manchester is constantly bleating about being a digital hub. (Shame about the broadband speeds, eh?)

f) Make it a disciplinary offence for any executive summary of a document to be as inaccurate as last year’s Annual Carbon Reduction Plan summary was. That document hid the fact that emissions had actually gone UP, and that the council was – despite all previous promises – going to miss its “20% by 2014” reduction target. The executive summary was all bland positives. This is simply unacceptable.

g) Create an online attendance indicator so that members of the public can see which members turned up for (how much of) each committee meeting. This should also put a stop to members lying about having been present at meetings. Just sayin’.

Will a single one of these happen? Don’t bother watching this space…

Advertisements

About manchesterclimatemonthly

Was print format from 2012 to 13. Now web only. All things climate and resilience in (Greater) Manchester.
This entry was posted in Democratic deficit, Manchester City Council. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to 7 things #Manchester City Council will not do to improve scrutiny of its Executive and officers

  1. gille liath says:

    This ‘one party state’ thing is – sorry – ridiculous.
    a) There isn’t only party from which the electorate may choose – that’s what a one party state means, not that only one is actually chosen. You may not approve of the choice, but that’s democracy.
    b) It isn’t a state – it’s a local council (ie it only has limited control of its area, and no control over many of the most important things).

    Besides, the implied belief that the other main parties would behave more responsibly over the environment…hello? Seen the news at all over the last 5 years?

    Sorry again, but this regularly repeated accusation does bug me. None of this, of course, excuses MCC’s lack of accountability – just that that’s how councils mostly are.

    • Gille,
      a) Ever heard of other forms of representative democracy besides first past the post? Er, Germany, where they are far less screwed on environmental issues than the UK? Monitory democracy? Participatory democracy? Concept of elective dictatorship?
      b) The “local state” is accepted parlance, at least to arch-capitalists pwc
      http://www.pwc.co.uk/government-public-sector/local-government/publications/the-local-state-we-are-in.jhtml
      c) doing much accountability work where you live? Wanna tell us about it?

      all best wishes, as ever.

      Marc

    • rogerbysouth says:

      Hi again Gille,
      To which state would you apply the term 1 party state?
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_Cuba ? No.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China ? No.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_North_Korea . Not even them. It’s a coalition. (…heard that term somewhere)
      I’m quite happy with calling the City of Mcr a 1 party state. I think we all get what it means. English local and national versions of democracy rely on checks on executive power through having formal oppositions, reinforced by first past the post voting. I imagine there’s still an office in the Town Hall lovingly lettered “Leader of the Opposition”.
      MCM uses “1 party state” to warn us about the clear and present danger to the (inadequate) democratic process when there is no opposition. Just when we need it most.
      I expect George O had something useful to say on this too.
      cheers

  2. gpheby says:

    I have some serious democratic improvements which could be made.

    Best wishesGraham Graham Pheby M.EdCommunications and community engagement member Northenden Neighbourhood Forum (NNF) 5,Lanark AvenueNorthenden Manchester M22 4NJ0161613270307903520730 Check out & ‘like’ our facebook.https://www.facebook.com/northendenforum launched 22/03/14 Please follow the NNF on Twitter at @NNForum launched 4/4/14 NNF Website coming mid May

    Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 09:33:17 +0000 To: gpheby@hotmail.co.uk

  3. joskin69 says:

    Maybe if the sorry lot of them brought their pets or under fives in to a Work Day? Let’s face it, they couldn’t do any worse!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s