LONDON SCRUTINY NETWORK
Action Learning Sets: final report
23 September 2009
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
CONTENTS
I
Introduction ................................................................................... i
The Action Learning Set and the LSN programme .................................. i
Purpose of this report ........................................................................ i
Summary of the outcomes .................................................................. i
What happened at each meeting .........................................................ii
2.
Roles: supporting versus doing ..................................................... 1
3.
Roles: working with elected Members ........................................... 3
4.
Political environment: maintaining impartiality ............................. 4
5.
Reputation: low awareness and in some cases resistance ............. 6
6.
Reputation: scrutinising partners .................................................. 7
7.
Skills for scrutiny .......................................................................... 8
8.
The scrutiny career ...................................................................... 10
9.
Impact of the action learning sessions ........................................ 11
10.
What next? .................................................................................. 12
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
I
INTRODUCTION
The Action Learning Set and the LSN programme
1.1.
During the Autumn of 2008 and Spring 2009 eight Overview and Scrutiny
officers took part in a series of five action learning set sessions sponsored by
Capital Ambition and the London Scrutiny Network.
1.2.
A similar learning set ran for Elected Members though that set was still
running at the time of this report – and this report focuses on learning from
the officer learning set only. A short report on the Elected Member learning
set will also be produced.
Purpose of this report
1.3.
This report’s purpose is to provide the London Scrutiny Network and Capital
Ambition with a summary of the officer action learning set meetings, what
they achieved, what issues they raised, and how effective they have been. It
has been written by the two facilitators from Shared Intelligence and the
Centre for Public Scrutiny who led the action learning sets. It picks out the
main learning points from the programme, including the skills needs
highlighted, and draws attention to wider issues around the development of
overview and scrutiny in local government.
1.4.
The objectives of the action learning sets were to enable participants to:

discuss challenges facing Overview & Scrutiny in their authority,
and with the help of their colleagues from other Councils
implement solutions to improve the function;

regularly interact and develop significant expertise in Overview &
Scrutiny that will enable them to become Overview & Scrutiny
‘champions’ able to offer support to peers who do not participate
in the learning group; and

gain experience of action learning sets and be able to use this
potentially to deliver action learning sets within their authority,
thereby extending the benefits of the funding beyond Overview &
Scrutiny.
Summary of the outcomes
1.5.
In the course of the action learning discussions four inter-connected themes
were recurrent and these have been used to structure this report:

The role of the individual scrutiny officer including the difficulty
and dilemmas in balancing “supporting” scrutiny with “doing”
Scrutiny and the practicalities of working with senior politicians;
-i-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets

The challenges of operating in a political environment but at the
same time maintaining the neutral position of Scrutiny in relation
to the ruling group and opposition groups;

Developing the reputation of scrutiny in the wider organisational
context – in particular the still patchy understanding of the
purpose of scrutiny among many service managers, and the
tensions which arise in the scrutiny of other agencies;

The skills needed for scrutiny, the links with the wider skills sets
needed in local government, and where scrutiny fits in a local
government career.
What happened at each meeting
1.6.
Each meeting lasted 4 hours. The first meeting began with a briefing on the
objectives of action learning. Following that each meeting followed a fixed
structure. Much of our approach was based on the model of action learning
described in Action learning for managers1. At the beginning each member of
the set would update their colleagues on “what happened next” in relation to
the issues they had raised at the previous meeting. Then the set members
would be invited by the facilitators to “bid for time” in the current meeting.
Two to three issues would be chosen for detailed discussion – they had to be
issues, problems, or dilemmas faced by the person presenting the issue
personally, and where there was a possibility of personal action by them to
resolve the issue. For each selected issue the discussion was structured as
follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.7.
Explanation of the issue by the issue presenter
Questions of clarification by other set members (answered by the presenter)
Suggestions by the other set members
Response to suggestions by the presenter
At the third meeting a guest speaker was invited to present a different
perspective on scrutiny. The presenter was Bruce Gill, a senior government
advisor on Race Equality, who had been closely involved in two very different
forms of public scrutiny. He had led the public inquiry to the death of Zahid
Mubarek in Feltham Young Offenders Institution, and had also led the UK
delegation to the UN Committee on the elimination of racial discrimination.
1
Action learning for managers, Mike Pedler (latest edition 2008)
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
2.
ROLES: SUPPORTING VERSUS DOING
“As a scrutiny officer should I be drafting ‘killer questions’ for
scrutiny Members to put to witnesses, though this goes against
the established culture?”
“How do I know when I am over-stepping my role when
helping Members in planning questions?”
Skills and knowledge issues raised: Understanding the scrutiny officer
role, Balance between “supporting” and “doing”
2.1.
In a perfect world most scrutiny officers would see Elected Members “doing”
scrutiny; driving the process from the setting of terms of reference, to the
planning of questions for evidence sessions, to the structure and
recommendations of the final report.
Officers’ own role would be to
“support” scrutiny dispassionately, gathering facts and expert advice,
designing evidence gathering sessions and offering advice about how to
structure the findings and recommendations.
2.2.
In reality this is not possible for a variety of reasons familiar to those who
work closely with elected members. Much of this stems from the fact that
scrutiny Members are backbench councillors with full time jobs or other
commitments and their time to plan meetings and author reports is tightly
constrained.
Furthermore they do not always have detailed technical
knowledge, even when they are on a permanent thematic committee, of the
services or organisational structures which are the subjects of their inquiry.
2.3.
The role of the Scrutiny officer is therefore a mix of “supporting” and “doing”
and this poses a number of challenges in terms of role definition and
ensuring Scrutiny retains its democratic accountability. These issues have
been explored in much greater detail in Dr Rod Dacombe’s research for the
Centre for Public Scrutiny Supporting Public Scrutiny2. The Centre for Public
Scrutiny’s series of guidance pamphlets “10 questions to ask if you’re
scrutinising…”3 are a practical acknowledgement of this issue.
2.4.
The most common manifestation of this in the learning sets was around
establishing a clear officer role more generally – in particular around planning
questioning strategies and scripts for public meetings. Several officers felt
2
Supporting Public Scrutiny: Understanding and developing the role of the professional scrutiny officer,
CfPS (2008)
3
For instance 10 questions to ask if you are scrutinising local eye health provision and similar CfPS
publications
-1-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
there was a difficult balance to be struck when it came to supporting Chairs
and their committee members in preparing questions for witnesses. Finding
that balance in practice raised a number of questions. When is it appropriate
for officers to help draft questions or turn soft questions into sharper
questions? How should Scrutiny Members be supported to demonstrate
strong questioning skills themselves – and is it counter-productive for officers
to do it for them?
2.5.
The suggestions offered by set members focused on supporting members to
take substantive decisions about the direction of the inquiry, as well as
regularly re-inforcing the distinction between officers’ and members’ roles.
They included

Always holding pre-meetings with the committee to plan lines of
questioning.

Encouraging Members to go on CfPS’ training visits to
parliamentary select committees to see how roles are performed,
and how questions are asked there.

Using short adjournments if unexpected issue arise mid-meeting.

Holding quick de-briefs with the Chair to see how they thought the
meeting went.

Not taking any important action or decision without the backing of
the Chair.
-2-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
3.
ROLES: WORKING WITH ELECTED MEMBERS
“I know the Chair reads and digests the emails I send but
rarely fulfils the actions needed”
“The Chair was unhappy that I circulated the previous
meeting’s notes and action points while they were away”
Skills and knowledge issues raised: Practical issues around working with
senior figures, Drafting role and job descriptions
3.1.
A number of issues discussed by the learning set were practical questions
about how to work best with Scrutiny members in particular with Scrutiny
Chairs. While these issues were practical and about working routines with
elected Members, the ‘supporting versus doing’ tension formed the context to
many these issues.
3.2.
Members of the set discussed the best modes of communication with elected
Members and how they differ from communication with other officers – faceto-face, email, by phone, or hard copy memos. Some of the issues were
both about role definition and levels of trust, such as when to seek a Chair’s
input into a draft report. Should an initial draft be prepared first or should
the officer sketch the outline with the Chair (and if so – how best to get the
diary space to do that). This also led to questions about how much original
thinking is it right for officers to do and how much of their own conclusions
and analyses be included in reports and recommendations.
And what
happens if a Chair does not respond to requests to comment on a draft –
does that mean they are happy, or simply have not read it, and is it
acceptable to take silence as consent?
3.3.
These areas of discussion highlighted the difference between the role of
scrutiny officers and other democratic services roles.
Unlike other
democratic services roles (which are about co-ordinating information from
senior managers in service departments), scrutiny officers, even at a
relatively junior level, are substantively involved in the creation of reports
and background information for Members and in the decisions which follow.
3.4.
There were two main suggestions around choosing the right practical
methods for working with Chairs:

Job/role descriptions for scrutiny Chairs

Investing real time in building a personal rapport and close
communication with the Chair the officer supports – meeting
regularly face-to-face, holding de-briefs, being open about things
which have not gone well from either perspective
-3-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
4.
POLITICAL
ENVIRONMENT:
IMPARTIALITY
MAINTAINING
“Should I be personally pushing for an item on child protection
to be taken under Part 1 [in public] when the service director
and Leader want it to be taken in private?”
“This O&S report is going to be used as the first salvo of the
election campaign – so how do I ensure scrutiny doesn’t get
tainted?”
Skills and knowledge issues raised: Principles of openness and public
interest council context, Operating as an effective critical friend, Media
handling and media strategy, Managing and identifying political risks,
Investigating the professional competence of individuals in the workplace
4.1.
The twin pressures of maintaining impartiality while at the same time
conducting robust and open scrutiny can easily lead to conflicting tensions.
One officer raised an issue about the Leader wanting scrutiny to take an item
of children’s social services on the “Part Two” section of the agenda. The
item had already been considered by the Cabinet, under Part Two, but the
initial view of the scrutiny officer and the chair of O&S was that there was
insufficient justification for taking the item in private. At the learning set the
officer sought advice on how hard to push for the item to be taken in public
against the wishes of the Cabinet and the chief officer – the leadership were
arguing this could embarrass them.
4.2.
The role of scrutiny is to champion openness, challenge decisions, but always
remain an impartial critical friend and not an oppositional force. But with the
Leader claiming this could be embarrassing to the administration, how could
O&S balance being a critical friend with the duty to challenge?
4.3.
The learning set agreed it was difficult to find a balance in this case and
offered a range of possible ways forward. The set members tended to argue
for openness and agreed that ideally the item should be discussed in public.
One set member pragmatically suggested not pushing any further “now the
point has been made” while others thought the officer should carry on
pushing, in the knowledge that the risk of embarrassment to the council was
in reality low. Set members also suggested that, whatever the officer chose
to do, they should ask for a clear re-statement by the borough solicitor of
when the Council is justified to use Part Two.
4.4.
At the following set meeting the officer reported back that he and his O&S
chair had gone ahead and tabled the item in public and this had been done
with the support of the borough solicitor. There were no major ramifications,
but the episode had highlighted the fine balance between public interest,
trust and co-operation within the council, and the pressure on scrutiny
officers to advise their chairs on those judgements.
-4-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
4.5.
Another officer raised similar issues about the impartiality of O&S in relation
to the imminent publication (the day after that particular action learning set
meeting) of a scrutiny report into a high profile case of overspending in the
local authority.
The inquiry had been carried out by a bipartisan special
Commission which included the Chair and Vice Chair of the Finance Scrutiny
Committee (the Vice Chair coming from the opposition group) and they had
been advised throughout by the council’s Monitoring Officer.
4.6.
There was clearly a risk of Scrutiny becoming politicised by issuing a report
which the opposition would seize on as evidence of weak administration.
The officer was also concerned about how much he and his team should get
involved in attempting to influence the local press coverage of the report.
4.7.
Set members suggested the officer should try to influence media coverage
and should also quickly agree with the council’s communications team some
positive messages about the independence and bipartisan membership of the
Commission. They also suggested circulating a clearly set out script about
the actual findings so those got reported accurately.
-5-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
5.
REPUTATION: LOW AWARENESS AND IN SOME
CASES RESISTANCE
“There is still a lot of misunderstanding about O&S right up to
heads of services”
Skills and knowledge issues raised: Designing staff development and
awareness-raising activities, Working with and influencing senior staff,
Delivering an internal challenge
5.1.
The effectiveness of scrutiny depends greatly on how well its aims and
objectives are understood by others. Even eight years after the introduction
of Overview and Scrutiny though, many officers including senior managers
still do not fully understand how scrutiny works. In particular the notion of
democratic ‘holding to account’ can get confused with more familiar notions
within local government of ‘external inspection’ or ‘political opposition’.
5.2.
Several officers in the learning set raised this as a concern on different
occasions. One example was where the officer had to explain repeatedly to
assistant directors and heads of service the review’s terms of reference
despite having been agreed at director level. The officer saw this partly a
result of directors not cascading that the review was a legitimate process
which the department had signed up to co-operate with.
But it was also
seen as a consequence of a low awareness remaining among some officers
about the wider political environment in which they operate; in particular
scrutiny, how it works, and its role in holding to account. This is rather
worrying especially given the 2009 Place Survey findings that only 29% of
citizens believe they can influence local services4.
5.3.
The group identified a number of short and longer term strategies to raise
awareness of and reduce resistance to scrutiny. The suggestions focused on:

Finding ways to get sessions on scrutiny included in council-wide
staff training, and internal communications

In relation to Terms of Reference for individual reviews there was
also thought to be mileage in ensuring these were disseminated to
all staff likely to be involved, not just senior managers

In terms of longer term strategies, getting a slot for Scrutiny on
councils’ routine induction courses for new staff and arranging
topic-based scrutiny sessions for a variety of staff
4
Place Survey 2008 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/statistics/placesurvey2008
-6-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
6.
REPUTATION: SCRUTINISING PARTNERS
“We had a one-off ‘challenge meeting’ where members were
meant to ask the Police about Safer Neighbourhoods – but
members attacked the Police and it became a slanging match”
Skills and knowledge issues raised: Planning and managing high-level
meetings and workshops, Drafting protocols for partnership scrutiny
6.1.
In 2001 Overview and Scrutiny Committees in top-tier local authorities
(including the London Boroughs) had their powers extended. In addition to
the activities of their own authority they gained powers to scrutinise health
services. With the recent implementation of the Police & Justice Act 2006
councils now have powers to scrutinise crime and disorder partnerships. The
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 also gives
powers to review and scrutinise Local Area Agreements and the work of
partner organisations signed up to targets within them.
6.2.
The primary interface between scrutiny and those partner agencies being
held to account are scrutiny officers. It is they who take the majority of the
decisions about how scrutiny of partner agencies will be conducted. In effect
they negotiate the terms of the relationship and take decisions which
determine the quality of scrutiny which takes place. For instance, it is
scrutiny officers who brief representatives form partner agencies on what
information and data is required for an inquiry or evidence session. They also
handle the stage-management, deciding when and how scrutiny Members
and partners meet, and preparing their own committee for key meetings with
representatives of other agencies.
6.3.
This can be a difficult role to perform. One officer described how the
committee had wanted him to arrange a one-off challenge session with the
Police – the Police response was positive and they agreed to take part.
However, the session became confrontational with committee members using
it as an opportunity to criticise the police without hearing what they had to
say. This was a major set-back in the relationships between Scrutiny and the
Police who, not surprisingly were unable to agree on the written outcomes
and recommendations of the meeting.
6.4.
In the learning set discussion set members suggested a number of ways in
which the officer could take action himself to help improve relationships
between scrutiny (and possibly by extension, other elected members) and
the Police. These included:

Brokering an informal meeting between the Borough Commander
and the Scrutiny Chair

Drafting clear and agreed protocols for any future challenge
sessions with partner agencies

Scheduling regular consultation meetings with the Police on
future inquiries in the Committee’s forward work programme
-7-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
7.
SKILLS FOR SCRUTINY
7.1.
Identifying skills needs was not an objective of the learning sets but it is a
core issue for scrutiny. Not least because there is relatively little evidence
available about what the skills needs are for scrutiny officer and Member
functions - something the London Scrutiny Network may wish to consider
further. It is also relevant to the wider discussions about developing a new
national professional body for scrutiny.
7.2.
For Elected Members several scrutiny specific training courses have been
developed – on subjects such as questioning and chairing meetings. This
provides a form of needs assessment by proxy. When it comes to officers
however, only a few professional development resources (such as the
INLOGOV and CfPS courses5) have been developed with content aimed at
developing delivery skills for the role.
7.3.
The CfPS report Supporting Public Scrutiny (referred to in paragraph 2.3)
attempted to identify skills needs from interviews with scrutiny officers and
found it a difficult task. From interviews with officers the authors identified
areas such as “working with members, research skills, writing and
communication and the legislative environment” – but because of conflicting
views among those interviewed, the authors place heavy caveats on even
these broad suggestions.
7.4.
The same authors also attempted to define the role of a scrutiny officer.
Again this is far from conclusive and their strongest message was what
scrutiny officers are not – and that was procedural clerks. A view we
wholeheartedly agree with. Attempts to describe the role have highlighted
skills around: research, negotiation, diplomacy, project management,
relationship building, communication, and public engagement. Given the lack
of documented skills needs we attempted to extrapolate what we could from
the learning set discussions about the skills necessary for the role – these are
shown at the top of each section of this report.
7.5.
In some cases these are skills the set members probably possessed, and in
other cases they were probably unmet needs – though it was not possible to
test which. It was also apparent that alongside role-specific skills, generic
line management skills were essential – around planning and organising
people and projects. The skills which we identified as being necessary to the
role were:

Planning and managing high-level meetings and workshops

Designing staff development and awareness-raising activities
5
The Institute of Local Government Studies offers an accredited 5-day programme covering scrutiny
theory and skills, and the Centre for Public Scrutiny run an occasional series of skills development days
-8-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
7.6.

Drafting role and job descriptions

Engaging and working with partners

Working with and influencing senior staff

Working with senior politicians (including basics such as using the
right communication methods)

Delivering an internal challenge role – possibly similar to training
for auditors

Media handling and media strategy

Managing and identifying political risks

Investigating the professional competence of individuals in the
workplace

Applying principles of openness and being aware of the public
interest context

Operating as an effective critical friend
We have not considered the implications of this set of skills apart from noting
similarities with future skills needs of local government, where ‘soft’ or
political skills such as brokering, collaboration and persuasion6 are more
important than the ability to manage or operate in conventional bureaucratic
‘processes’.
6
For example All our futures: the challenges for local governance in 2015, ODPM (2006) argues leaders
will need skills for “brokering, collaboration and persuasion” as much as for “steering the operation of a
major service delivery organisation”.
-9-
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
8.
THE SCRUTINY CAREER
8.1.
Career progression was also discussed by the officer set members in terms of
“where does one go after scrutiny?”. Scrutiny teams tend to be quite flat in
structure, but they are often staffed by ambitious officers in the early stages
of their careers. Inevitably this means most scrutiny officers most of the
time have few opportunities to seek promotion within their team, and
proportionately there are very few Heads of Scrutiny posts for every Scrutiny
officer post.
8.2.
Set members therefore felt they had to think creatively about their career
development in order to maintain their long-term prospects and their job
satisfaction.
8.3.
In one discussion focused on a particular officer set member, the other set
members offered practical suggestions such as:
8.4.

Seeking a move to a frontline post or secondment into a service
they have built knowledge of through scrutiny

Using knowledge of governance and getting
satisfaction by becoming a school governor

Registering on one of the market-leading jobfinder websites to
see what job suggestions come up based on existing skills and
experience
greater
job
It does seem that the size and structure of scrutiny teams, and the nature of
the role make the choosing of a career route out of scrutiny more
complicated than for other council employees. But at the same time, the
skills gained as a scrutiny officer are the complex, high-value skills which
local government will increasingly need at the senior level. There may
therefore be an opportunity for local authorities to actively encourage officers
with leadership potential to take posts in scrutiny as an important stage on
their career path – perhaps as part of talent and graduate development
programmes. Then once they have been schooled in some of the political,
communication, and judgement skills which future leaders will need, they
could be moved on into more senior roles elsewhere which would benefit
from those skills.
- 10 -
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
9.
IMPACT OF THE ACTION LEARNING SESSIONS
“The opportunity to discuss and share experience with
colleagues who actually understood what scrutiny was”
“Realising you’re not alone with issues… being a scrutiny
officer, even in a team, can feel quite lonely”
“Greater confidence arising from making suggestions to other
participants… recognising one’s own knowledge and expertise”
9.1.
At the end of the fifth meeting, members of the officers set were asked what
they thought of the action learning process and what impact it had made on
their work. This was followed up with an online questionnaire.
9.2.
The overall view of the set members was that it had been good, and had
brought benefits which they valued highly.
9.3.
Several members of the set said they had been prompted to take action
leading to a positive outcome as a direct result of discussions within the
learning set. In particular it provided the impetus to act - even though the
action itself might have already been considered prior to the set meeting.
9.4.
As with other action learning sets most set members said it had been a good
experience though quite different from what they had expected and this had
provoked some initial reservations. Only one set member said he still had
reservations about action learning at the end of the programme.
In
particular the set members had been unprepared for the focus on individual
challenges owned by themselves and the other set members. One set
member also said he had expected the set to tackle the ‘big scrutiny issues’
and was concerned the issues discussed in practice were often quite prosaic.
9.5.
What set members said they found most useful was the chance to focus on
their own day-to-day challenges away from the distractions of the office, and
explore issues with colleagues who were neutral and had no vested interest.
More generally they said they valued the opportunity to network and share
good practice with other people in similar roles, from other boroughs.
9.6.
Some set members also felt their self-confidence benefited when they saw
how their own insight and expertise was valued by other set members – and
when they heard that others in similar roles faced similarly tough challenges.
The regulated nature of the discussion was also felt to enable both quiet and
talkative personalities to have a fair share.
9.7.
In terms of potential improvements, set members felt the facilitators should
have pushed harder for set members to prepare issues they were going to
raise in advance of meetings. They also found the one guest speaker,
though relevant and engaging, ‘broke up the tight structure’ of the learning
sets. Also, despite a focused facilitation style, some set members said they
would have preferred an even stricter style of facilitation.
- 11 -
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
10. WHAT NEXT?
10.1.
The aim of the action learning set was to deliver a programme of immediate
and ongoing benefit and enable participants to lead action learning sets of
their own. In particular it was to enable participants to:

discuss challenges facing Overview & Scrutiny in their authority,
and with the help of their colleagues from other Councils
implement solutions to improve the function;

regularly interact and develop significant expertise in Overview &
Scrutiny that will enable them to become Overview & Scrutiny
‘champions’ able to offer support to peers who do not participate
in the learning group; and

gain experience of action learning sets and be able to use this
potentially to deliver action learning sets within their authority,
thereby extending the benefits of the funding beyond Overview &
Scrutiny.
10.2.
The view of the two facilitators is that all three of these objectives were met to different degrees. The views of the set members also suggest they found
this a good experience in particular the opportunity to share common
problems and obtain a ‘reality check’ on issues of concern in a confidential
environment. In addition we have highlighted the gaps in knowledge about
the delivery skills needs of scrutineers, and the relatively limited professional
development or training opportunities to enable officers to develop their skills
for scrutiny.
10.3.
In terms of ongoing benefits the officer participants have identified three
ways in which the programme could bring ongoing benefits:

They plan to continue meeting without external facilitation and
have set up their own web forum on the IDeA Communities of
Practice website

They wish to make an open offer to be a sounding board for the
London Scrutiny Network – as they can bring different borough
perspectives and are also familiar with working with each other as
a team

The officers also suggest that LSN could establish new subregional learning sets which they would be willing to be involved
in
10.4.
One officer is also about to take part in an internal learning set in his council.
10.5.
We therefore suggest London Scrutiny Network and Capital Ambition consider
the following three recommendations:

To support the officers and Elected Members who participated in
this programme to continue, if they wish, their involvement in
action learning as a self-facilitated activity or some other form.
- 12 -
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets

To consider in due course whether to provide the same
opportunity for another cohort of officer and Elected Members.

To investigate further the skills needs of scrutiny officers and
Elected Members with a view to providing others forms of skills
development and support.
- 13 -
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS
London Scrutiny Network action learning sets
1 FITZROY SQUARE, LONDON W1T 5HE
020 7756 7600
TOWER HOUSE, FISHERGATE, YORK YO10 4UA
01904 567 381
www.sharedintelligence.net
[email protected]
- 14 -
SHARED INTELLIGENCE & CFPS