Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Moss
I've heard tell of these old committees and it didn't sound like a bad system at all.
|
I worked under both systems, and whichever one you choose, you still end up with a nucleus of powerful councillors making all the decisions. Peter has his Cabinet, George Slynn had his "Chairs and Vice Chairs" who met behind closed doors to determine everything, especially the budget.
However, at least with committee meetings the back benchers were in on the debate prior to resolutions being passed, rather than sitting on their hands at the back of the room like naughty schoolchildren, listening to the cabinet debate. Yes they can get involved in scrutiny, but it is very much "after the event" when the impetus of the original decision is long since gone.
One of the other changes I've seen is the responsibility taken by cabinet members that usually fell in the past to chief officers. Nowadays, press releases always refer to the portfolio holder, rather than the Director of Health or the Director of Housing etc. Officers have gone from being high profile to being virtually anonymous. In the past, the Chief Executive was as well known locally, and quoted as often as, the Leader. Now, he or she is virtually anonymous.
I'm not saying that's a good or a bad thing, I'm just making the observation