Bristol Live readers have expressed little surprise at the news that an upcoming review will delve into initial issues with the new committee system of governance at Bristol City Council. It’s been nearly half a year since the eight policy committees assumed control over a broad spectrum of political decisions impacting everyone in the city.
Since their takeover, a number of problems have arisen, igniting disputes such as who holds power in the new system. Some policy committee meetings have descended into chaos and confusion, with councillors learning on the job how the new system operates.
A newly formed committee model review group will spend six months investigating these issues and proposing potential solutions. The group’s remit includes reviewing: leadership, functions, roles and structure of the committees; policy development and task groups; report writing and options papers; briefings and agenda-setting procedures; public participation; local decision-making; budget-setting processes; and delegations to officers.
The group is set to report back to the full council with recommendations in March next year.
Commenter Malagogogirl writes: “Who’da thunk it? Having loads of committees (with more to come, remember) made up of rival politicians to run a big city – it’s a barking model and there’s a reason it’s used almost nowhere else. The city had two years to get this up and running but the list of things that are being reviewed seems to cover just about all aspects of the system. Nothing seems to function properly. And what’s been put in place to conduct this review? A group made up of Green, Labour, Lib Dem and Tory councillors – a committee! ”
Thecookedsock agrees: “A committee to look into why the committee system isn’t working for Bristol and has reduced transparency and democracy? You couldn’t make it up.”
Junius1 replies: It should be remembered that the committee system was set up with the previous regime acting as an adversary to it, refusing to cooperate in any way. Much of the committee system’s work since Marvin’s departure has been shaped by clearing up the mess that was left trying to work around it (eg. the deplorable state of council housing repairs; the botched contracts management system; failures over the community infrastructure levy monies and so it goes on).
“The committee system needs to be given time to iron out problems. If it does not adopt a more cooperative way of working to solve problems and ditch the ‘warring politicians’ behaviour, it certainly won’t succeed. This requires more responsible behaviour from Labour politicians. It’s fine to be critical in scrutinising what goes on, but it’s destructive to go in with an attitude of undermining everything in order to satisfy a party grievance.”
Malagogogirl replies: “This review will be the first of many. They will all be in vain. The committee system will fail (Bristol) because of the nature of party politics. You can call for cooperation between parties for the common good but it won’t happen – the nature of party politics mitigates against it.
“We’re on our first review after just five months. No matter what the review comes up with I predict: procedural wrangles, meeting walk-outs, parties boycotting individual committees, parties boycotting all committees, votes of no-confidence in Chairs, interminable discussion of insignificant detail, the politicisation of all problems no matter how small, glacial decision-making, endless recriminations when things go wrong, an inability to react quickly to unforeseen events, poor coordination between committees, uncoordinated communication to Bristol residents. Hope I’m wrong.”
Junius1 says: “A review and learning process from it is a good idea because no new system of governance is brought in as an immaculate conception. It is also important that all stakeholders in the committee system are committed to enhancing its effectiveness and do not harbour barely secret agendas to sabotage it, to satisfy party grievances.
“Public participation is essential. In this, devolving as much decision making as possible to local settings in which the public can actively participate is more important than filming meetings of central elites where the public are mere passive consumers of decisions in which they play no part. This is not to discount the videoing of committee meetings. The public also needs to see what goes on at the centre.”
Batteryacid replies: “The committee system is bound by bureaucracy and different political factions each wanting to impose their will. To suggest another layer of opinion on top of that by allowing public participation is just madness.
“The public had their say at the ballot box and only 17% of the electorate wanted a committee system. This is the democratic way. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the system, just the intransigence of the people in it. The filming is important so that everyone can see the shambles that a few people asked for. The disenfranchised public can still go their local ward councillor and lobby them whilst the ‘review and learning’ talking shop lumbers on interminably.”
Do you think the new committee system needs an overhaul? What are your opinions on the way it’s going? Have your say in our comments section.