Agenda item
Report 'Called In' - East End Life Review
Minutes:
At the request of the Chair, Councillor David Snowdon on behalf of the Call-in Members referred to the reasons for their requisition and highlighted the main issues that they held with the Cabinet’s provisional decision regarding the East End Life Review agreed on 8th June 2011.
CouncillorSnowdon considered that the decision contravened government guidance regarding the frequency of Local Authority news letters i.e. that they be no more than quarterly. The proposed frequency exceeded that adopted by the vast majority of other Local Authorities. Due to these breaches, the decision was unlawful.
Furthermore, the cost analysis in the report overlooked many key factors. For instance, the savings predicted from closure only took into account one off costs ignoring the many other savings that could be achieved by this. The section on advertising costs was unrealistic. It overlooked many key factors i.e. the savings from block purchasing, availability of discounts. No real quotes were sought. The pricing assessment overlooked many other costs, for example IT, Human Resources, accommodation costs. There were no real like for like comparisons. In view of these issues, it was requested that the costs implications of the options be properly reviewed.
CouncillorSnowdon also considered that greater consideration should have been given to the other alternatives available. This could include:
- Block booking in external newspapers such as the East London Advertiser, with free copies made available in Idea Stores, libraries and other community venues. Given the current reduction in the advertising budget, buying adverts in an external newspaper could prove less expensive.
- Publishing the statutory notices in alternative newspapers and public places.
- Reducing the number of pages, as per other local authorities, with better use of space on the page.
The Committee carefully considered Councillor Snowdon’s presentation. The Committee shared his concerns that the costs of the options were not fully considered.
It was also felt that further consideration should be given to the following options:
- Models adopted elsewhere, such as in Hammersmith and Fulham and Enfield. It was considered that the latter was more efficient with a smaller A4 format.
- An RSL funded option advertising choice based lettings. Consideration could be given to working with representatives from RSLs to take this forward and secure contributions and share distribution.
- Working with the East London Advertiser (Archant Limited) to obtain a more cost effective offer.
Concern was also expressed at the independence of the review since it was undertaken by the officer responsible for East End Life, rather than independent persons. This placed the officer in a difficult position. It was very important that the review was impartial. Furthermore the survey results were based on only a small number of responses, less than half of which supported the recommendation. It was therefore felt that there was inadequate consultation.
The Committee also shared the view that there needed to be a real like for like comparison in evaluating alternatives. It was also noted that only two other Councils in London had weekly newspapers. It felt that the review was rushed.
The Lead Member for Resources, CouncillorAlibor Choudhury, supported by Takki Sulaiman,Head of Communications,responded to these points on behalf of the Cabinet. Councillor Choudhury reported on the reasons for the review and its aims. The review was completely impartial and independent. The review fully took into account the new Code issued by Parliament which had been adhered to as well as other options available which were found to be less viable. As indicated by the independent survey, it was clear that people wanted a paper based newsletter with high levels of support for a weekly paper. The recommendations were heavily influenced by this and would meet the savings target.
In relation to advertising, Mr Sulaiman provided a breakdown of the various sources of income. The proposals provided the best balance between cost effectiveness and the need to keep residents informed. The alternative options were fully explored but an offer of space in the East London Advertiser below the rate card had not been made.
In addition, the other newspapers explored have a relatively limited circulation so there may be problems in terms of reach should they be pursued. Innovations online were being considered and this would be used more in the future. However ownership of computers was currently lowest amongst the most vulnerable residents and there was therefore strong support for retaining a paper based newspaper. The price comparison exercise represented a true ‘like for like’ comparison of the costs
In considering these points, Members acknowledged the need for paper based newsletters. They reached out to a lot of people especially those not familiar with IT. It meant a great deal to people having their news in a paper format especially the housing pages. This should not be underestimated. The positive achievements of East End Life as a newsletter in publicising community news was also welcomed.
Consequently it was considered necessary to retain some form of paper based newsletter. However alternative ways of delivering this and other formats should be explored to maximize savings and efficiencies.
After considering the views and comments made by the Members presenting the call-in, the Lead Member for Resources, CouncillorAlibor Choudhury and Takki Sulaiman, Head of Communications,the Committee agreed not to endorse the Cabinet’s provisional decision but instead it was
RESOLVED
That the Cabinet be requested to give further consideration to their views and concerns. This was on the following basis:
- That costs of the options have not been properly explored;
- That the alternatives available have not been fully explored;
- Exploration of alternative options should have included:
- Working with East London Advertiser, or other existing local newspapers, to obtain a more cost effective offer;
- An option which is joint funded with RSLs, working with them to share the costs and distribution, in relation to advertising choice based lettings.
- Concerns about the community consultation not being widespread enough.
- Concerns about the impartiality/independence of the report given that the officer who conducted the review was placed in a difficult position, reviewing his own service.
- Members have a duty to residents to ensure they are making the right decision and further work was required to ensure we are achieving the best possible solution.
Supporting documents:
-
5.1_Call-in cover report, item 5.1
PDF 67 KB
-
5.1a1_EEL Erratum 080611, item 5.1
PDF 56 KB
-
5.1a_EEL Review Cabinet Report for 8th June 2011 FINAL, item 5.1
PDF 124 KB
-
5.1b_EEL Cab appendix, item 5.1
PDF 1005 KB