The Ultimate Committee Paper Checklist (Public Sector)
Writing sharp, readable and polished board papers may seem like a indulgent luxury or even a waste of time, with all the pressures inherent in meeting citizens' needs with limited resources. But a good meeting paper pack can pay dividends in chaotic times, by simplifying our very complex business; and enabling committees to do their job far more effectively.
Board / committee members are human beings, however senior or talented they are. They are often tired and overloaded; and they often appreciate the care and courtesy of a well-written paper more than you can imagine.
Many (not all) public sector organisations also use cover sheets; and these are sometimes resented as a time-wasting annoyance. But done properly, cover sheets give all kinds of benefits. They bring consistency to the meeting pack making it easier to digest; they help us to fulfil statutory requirements; they can be read as a standalone summary when time is tight; and can even be cannibalised for the minutes if well-written enough (meaning: the report author gets to control what's written in the minutes).
But writing good papers is a complex, tacit skill acquired through experience. Not everyone knows how to do it; and not every manager has the time or wherewithal to teach their team.
That's where this checklist comes in! It covers everything, from the most basic questions about whether you've used the right coversheet template, to more challenging prompts about whether your paper is appropriate for that board or committee.
You can adapt and use this checklist in many different ways. For example:
Above all, please feel free to edit and adapt this checklist to meet your own (and your organisation's needs), albeit please reference this as a Creative Commons work originating from Pushing the Pen (see end of article).
Meeting secretaries: If you'd like an editable Word table for reviewing whole meeting packs against this checklist, please comment below or message me.
The sections of the checklist are:
A. COVER SHEET FORMAT AND OTHER BASIC COMPLIANCE
1. Does the name of the item match on the coversheet and main paper?
2. Do the recommendation and next steps match on the coversheet and main paper?
3. Has the correct cover sheet template been used with no modifications?
4. Are all job titles included and correct (i.e. we don’t just have someone's name written in isolation)?
5. Are all fields completed as appropriate on the cover sheet template?
6. Is the paper clearly identified as public or confidential, and does this match the status of the meeting?
7. If the paper is deemed confidential, is the rationale for this explained?
8. Do any attachments match the attachments listed in the cover sheet? Are they appended to the paper in the same numbered order as listed on the cover sheet?
9. Is it clear that the appropriate Executive Director (or other lead as appropriate) has signed it off?
10. Are the font size and spacing etc consistent and in line with corporate standards?
11. Does the footer (if used) have the correct name / date of the meeting / agenda item etc?
12. Are the coversheet and appendices free of embedded documents?
13. Are you and the meeting secretary both clear who is presenting the paper on the day and does the presenter have this meeting in their diary?
14. Are all the appendices easily readable on screen? [see also #30 below]
15. Is it clear which other groups have looked at this paper already (or earlier versions of it), and what the outcome of these discussions was?
B. COVER SHEET – QUALITY OF CONTENTS
16. Have the compliance fields on the cover sheet (if applicable) been tailored to this paper, i.e. they don’t just contain “boilerplate text”, or meaningless narrative such as, “All relevant risks will be assessed as part of this project”? In other words, will the text in the compliance fields add usefully to the committee’s understanding of the item?
17. Is the recommendation clear? (Will the committee understand what it needs to do?)
18. Is the coversheet free of unexplained acronyms / technical terms?
19. Does the cover sheet look generally neat and tidy in terms of layout; formatting etc?
20. Does the coversheet read well and is it easy to understand?
21. Are the spelling, grammar and syntax correct in the coversheet?
22. Is the executive summary clear, succinct and easy to understand?
23. Is it clear from the cover sheet what the paper is about and what the key points are for the committee’s attention?
24. Could someone understand the item and any decision needed by reading the cover sheet alone?
C. MAIN PAPER – FORMAT AND ACCESSIBILITY
25. Are all tables and figures clear, succinct and legible?
26. Is alternative text (alt text) used to explain any non-text content such as images, graphs, tables, images of text etc? *
27. Is the paper free of any content which relies solely on colour or other sensory characteristics to be understood? *
28. Is the document free of justified text (i.e. text that is aligned to both the left and the right margins)? *
领英推荐
29. Is the line spacing at least space-and-a-half within paragraphs, and paragraph spacing at least 1.5 times larger than the line spacing? *
30. [Linked to #14 above] Are all the appendices readable on the screen without losing information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions? (It's considered acceptable to provide two-dimensional scrolling for parts of the content).*
31. Are all dates / numbers / references etc presented in a consistent format throughout the paper?
D. MAIN PAPER - STRUCTURE, FLOW AND READABILITY
32. Is the paper clearly structured and easy to read?
33. Is the paper free of unexplained acronyms and jargon?
34. Could someone who doesn't understand the topic understand this paper?
35. Is the paper free of inappropriate repetition?
36. Is the paper broken up into clear “chunks” of information, i.e. short paragraphs; use of subheadings or bullet points etc?
E. MAIN PAPER – QUALITY OF CONTENTS
37. Has the paper been tailored to the specific needs and role of this committee? (Do you understand the role of this committee as a report author?)
38. If a decision is needed, is it appropriate for this committee to make it, in line with your organisation’s Scheme of Reservation and Delegation (or equivalent)?
39. Are the contents of the paper factually correct?
40. Are any references included correctly as needed?
41. Is the paper written in an objective voice, and free of conjecture or personal opinion?
42. Is the paper free of any text that could cause offence or be interpreted to the detriment of the organisation?
43. Does the paper pass the “Daily Mail” test? (i.e: Is there potential for your paper to trigger a negative media reaction?) Although Alex Hunter offers a good critique of this question - see below**
44. Is the paper a good length / level of detail for this committee?
45. Does the paper make sure to explain any important background information, i.e. does not make assumptions that the reader will share the report author’s expertise?
46. Does the paper acknowledge any associated risks, issues or opposing views, i.e. the tone is not unduly positive?
47. If the proposal is contentious does it include more than one source of advice?
F. QUESTIONS FOR COMMITTEE PAPER APPROVERS
The key will be for you to decide which elements you want to review yourself (e.g. just this section; or also Sections B and/or D above) and seek assurance that someone else has already reviewed the remainder of the checklist. This should make best use of your time, and save you from having to check basic elements such as formatting, or spelling and grammar.
48. Do you have assurance that someone has checked some or all of the points listed above, so that you don’t have to?
49. Is this paper appropriate and helpful for this specific meeting?
50. Does this paper have citizens' best interests / the effective stewardship of public money at its centre; and is this made explicit?
51. Does this paper support the organisation’s (or partnership's) strategic aims; and is this made explicit?
52. Is the paper generally well-written and does it give a professional impression of your portfolio?
This is a lot to take in; and checklists aren't to everyone's liking. Atul Gawande writes in his book: The Checklist Manifesto:
We don't like checklists. They can be painstaking. They're not much fun [...] It somehow feels beneath us to use a checklist, an embarrassment. It runs counter to deeply held beliefs about how the truly great among us - those we aspire to be - handle situations of high stakes and complexity. The truly great are daring. They improvise. They do not have protocols and checklists. Maybe our idea of heroism needs updating.
Later in the same book, Gawande exhorts us to accept:
[...] the simplicity and power of using a checklist [...] Indeed, against the complexity of the world, we must. There is no other choice. When we look closely, we recognize the same balls being dropped over and over, even by those of great ability and determination [...] It's time to try something else. Try a checklist.
Did I miss anything, or would you comment on any of the points listed above? If so, please leave a comment below . . .
* Disclaimer: Pushing the Pen is completely separate to my day job, and does not necessarily represent my employer or its views.
Nothing in this article is prescriptive; and if your organisation's policies differ from anything I've said here, then please follow your corporate policies as a default.
You are welcome to use share or adapt this material for free under Creative Commons: CC-BY-SA 4.0, as long as you credit Pushing the Pen as appropriate: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0
References
Main image: Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich | Pexels
All items marked with * are requirements under the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2 published in October 2023. This is the technical standard for UK public sector websites and mobile apps, and is published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
** Alex Hunter writes on LinkedIn: "Nothing passes the Daily Mail test! [and] there is an even greater risk if decisions aren't taken or are delayed because of worries about what the media might report [...] Decision-making in any organisation should be about what is right for the business, its customers, staff and other stakeholders. No decision will ever prove universally popular and some are very hard to make indeed [...] Next time you are in a meeting and the 'Daily Mail test' is raised, make sure you have proper mitigation of PR risks in place and keep in mind that it's a test few will ever really pass."
Head of HR Services & Resourcing - NHS
10 个月This is really helpful thank you! Something I need to get better at so I'll be using it for my next paper!
I help accountants and auditors turn insights into impact by improving their business writing.
10 个月You're right that many professionals* are reluctant to use checklists because they feel an implied criticism of their professional knowledge and skills. Even though checklists are proven to reduce errors. (*Not all. Airline pilots is one example of a profession where checklists are the norm.)