204
Richard Clifford, Lead Democratic Services Officer, introduced the report, updating the Committee on developments since the 2016 Review of Meetings and Ways of Working, noting the work to improve use of technology and public access. Digital agenda use and new arrangements for ‘Have Your Say’ sections had been introduced and were detailed in the report. Audio-streaming was now routine for most formal meetings and was being accessed by the public in sometimes considerable numbers. It was also used by the media.
The Lead Democratic Services Officer highlighted the work underway to explore options for video-streaming, with potential costs and considerations detailed within the report, relating to one provider under consideration, Public-i. Estimates of costs had been based on a 60-hour contract, covering the Council Chamber for Full Council and Planning Committee meetings, which had been identified as the two bodies whose meetings garnered the greatest public interest. Benefits of the service included improving accessibility of meetings, an ability to link it to CMIS and the addition of a transcription service. This would help the Council meet its duties regarding new accessibility regulations due to come into force in September of this year, and would increase remote viewing of meetings, consistent with work to address the Climate Emergency declared by the Council.
Video-streaming would require fixed cameras to be installed in the Council Chamber, and it was confirmed that Public-i has experience of doing this in heritage buildings. Public-i had indicated that they were would be willing to brief members further on the details and benefits of this system.
The Chairman gave a summary of the initial 2016 Review, which had been instigated to explore ways to improve accessibility and the way that members operated. A public consultation had been carried out to gain views. Streaming had been a popular idea, and the Chairman considered video-streaming to be the next step. The updated ‘Have Your Say’ arrangements had generally been found to be successful, with the chance for public speakers to follow up after receiving an answer. It was queried how this might be opened up further for residents.
A Committee member agreed with the value of increased broadcasting of meeting and gave the view that any video-streaming arrangement should cover Cabinet meetings, which were a prime focus of important decision making within the Council. This would require camera coverage of the Grand Jury Room as the usual venue for Cabinet meetings. It was member’s view that the Council would have capital available to allow for video-streaming in the Council Chamber and Grand Jury Room. The Chairman and members agreed that this was a valid point and that video-streaming from the Grand Jury Room should be included in any contract, if it was to continue to host Cabinet meetings. An additional suggestion was made that a ‘mobile’ broadcasting facility should be sought, to allow for coverage of meetings in the Moot Hall, which would include the more-important Planning Committee meetings, which drew a large amount of public interest.
It was suggested that the Council could establish a YouTube channel to carry meeting footage, amongst other types of video. It was also queried as to the expected remaining life expectancy of the current audio amplification and broadcasting systems and whether it would be prudent, if these were due for replacement in coming years, to replace them at the same time as installing video facilities.
Amanda Chidgey, Democratic Services Officer, highlighted the audio-streaming statistics which showed that Full Council and Planning meetings attracted the largest audiences, and which had led to the recommendation to prioritise these meetings for video-streaming. The use of cameras in the Grand Jury Room would involve more issues, as the room was used for a multitude of purposes, and the cameras and tables would need to be carefully set prior to each meeting to ensure coverage of meeting proceedings. It would be possible to hire a mobile system via Public-i, which would also enable broadcasting from the Moot Hall, but would increase the cost. Some local authorities were already developing solutions using YouTube. This was also under consideration and could be integrated with Public-i.
Approval of the ability for members of the public to have a one-minute follow-up to responses to their ‘Have Your Say!’ participation in meetings was echoed, although concern was raised that the ‘Have Your Say!’ item on meeting agendas often overruns the 15 minutes allocated by the Council’s constitution. Whilst the general view was that it is important not to curtail the public’s right to speak, the time taken on this section of meeting agendas at Full Council often had the effect of pushing councillors’ questions to Cabinet to a much later time, or to prevent these questions at lengthy meetings where a guillotine motion is called to end proceedings. The importance of councillors’ questions was stressed in relation to their role in holding administrations to account, although one member considered them to be of limited use, due to their partisan nature. It was noted that the Committee could review the ‘Have Your Say!’ provisions within the Constitution and Meeting Procedure Rules.
Another Committee member spoke in defence of maintaining the greater engagement of ‘Have Your Say!’ with the proviso that a point may come where speakers intending to make similar points may need to be asked to choose which should speak, to avoid repetition. It was suggested that a wide-scale review of arrangements to ensure accountability should be considered.
The discussion of meeting arrangements led to one Committee member giving the view that use of the Council Chamber should be minimised, on the grounds that the Chamber was not suitable for effective meetings, with cramped seating, minimal desk space and obstructive microphone/speaker units. Amanda Chidgey, Democratic Services Officer, agreed and noted that none of the Town Hall meeting rooms were entirely adequate, especially regarding access for those with mobility difficulties.
In response the Monitoring Officer clarified that a 15 minutes total meeting limit for ‘Have Your Say!’ had formed part of the Meeting Procedure Rules of the Constitution for a considerable time, with the caveat that the Chairman of a meeting had absolute discretion on limiting or extending the time for contributions from the public. The importance of not stifling public participation was stressed and the Committee was informed that, with regard to improving arrangements for councillors’ questions at Full Council, a recent meeting of the Policy and Public Initiatives Panel had recommended that these questions are scheduled earlier in the agenda of Full Council meetings.
It was queried whether a return to holding Portfolio Holder briefings and question and answer sessions was possible. It was further suggested that an annual meeting could be set for Cabinet, to be devoted entirely to ‘Have Your Say!’ contributions, and/or to hold a Cabinet ‘Have Your Say!’ meeting on a Saturday. The Monitoring Officer informed the Committee that the Policy and Public Initiatives Panel had recently recommended that the Scrutiny Panel return to scheduling Portfolio Holder scrutiny sessions in its Work Programme.
The Lead Democratic Services Officer provided an update on the use of digital agendas for Committee meetings. Trials of this had commenced in 2017 and had then been rolled out to all Committees which met in the Grand Jury Room, becoming widely accepted. A significant saving had been achieved on printing costs and the use of digital agendas had helped to show the Council’s commitment to modernising its ways of working. Officers agreed that it was important to likewise modernise the Council Chamber to make it fit for digital working. Work on this could be possible alongside the installation of a new audio-visual system and could involve charging points, better desk space, improved microphones and an electronic voting system.
The Committee noted the need for a comprehensive solution to modernise the operation of meetings and to better-equip the Council Chamber. The use of digital agendas was welcomed, but it was noted that some members struggled with digital working and that, where needed, hard copy agendas must be available for those who requested them.
A concern was voiced that members currently did not have rooms in the Town Hall that permitted informal and private conversations to be held. The Portfolio Holder for Business and Resources agreed that, if the Council was to invest in improved facilities, value for money must be maximised by the consideration of a number of alternative options. The Committee were informed of current developments regarding plans to modernise the use of rooms at the Town Hall. The conversion of the current Liberal Democrat group room into a room for all councillors had been deferred by Planning Committee and the Members’ Development Group would consider the plans for re-allocating Town Hall rooms further, so as to ensure this works best for councillors, for use by the public, including commercial clients, and to keep the collegiate standard required for the Council to maintain its Charter Status for Elected Member Development.. The Committee stressed the importance of the duty of care to maintain and use the Town Hall for the public good.
RESOLVED that the Committee noted the progress on the recommendations arising from the Review of Meetings and Ways of Working.
RECOMMENDED to CABINET that the potential benefits of webcasting public meetings be considered further.