Agenda item
Call-In - Recording / Webcasting of Council Meetings
To consider a call-in request made in respect of Cabinet’s decision on the recording / webcasting of Council meetings.
Minutes:
The Chair invited Councillor Joshua Peck, on behalf of the call-in Members, to present the reasons for the call-in requisition. Councillor Peck highlighted the following issues:
· Full Council had decided that residents should be able to view Council meetings, and officers were instructed to prepare options for how this could be done. He had been surprised when Cabinet decided not to go ahead with the webcasting.
· The costs of the proposal were not significant
· The Call-In had identified 2 options for finding the funds – not recruiting to the Mayoral Communications Advisor post and returning the Mayor’s leased car.
In response to questions from the Committee, Councillor Peck provided the following information:
· Webcasting Council meetings would probably help improve make everyone’s behaviour.
· Many other local authorities webcast meetings and this also provides a good record of Council meetings, which would be useful for the business of the Standards Committee.
· Councillor Peck was in favour of at least using the existing system and any measure which improved accountability and transparency.
· Option 3 would be the best one for people with hearing problems. This option also encouraged feedback from viewers. Councillor Peck had some concerns around the potential for improper usage of the material, but welcomed any development which improved accountability of what happens in the Council chamber.
· Webcasting might discourage some young people from engaging with politics, but also might engage others. At the very least it could help demystify the local democratic process -as evidenced by the broadcasting of Parliament.
The Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) responded to the matters raised advising the Committee that she was unable to comment on behalf of the Executive but was willing to discuss the options in more detail. In discussion the Committee received the following information:
- There were concerns about using the existing system (Option 1 in the report) because of its age. The quality of voice recording was poor and the cameras were fixed. Regarding audibility, the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) agreed to ask Democratic Services to look into improving the microphone system in the Chamber.
Action: Democratic Services
- Option 3 would cost £25K per annum, and would give the best results.
- Officer research suggested that 6 out of 32 London boroughs webcast meetings. Of other authorities questioned, viewing figures were ‘low’, with Kent having less than 100 live viewers, Thanet an average of 120, Braintree an average of 120.
- People could tamper or play with footage, although this would be harder to do with option 3.
- Members would need training in relation to ethical matters such as defamation.
- It was felt that that webcasting would likely improve behaviour in the chamber.
In response to the Committee’s questions the Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) provided the following information:
- In clarification of the necessary finances, particularly for maintaining the current system and those for option 3, the Committee was informed that current costs were very low.
- Regarding the suggestion that switching on the present equipment (option 1) could improve behaviour immediately, the Committee was informed that this outcome was not guaranteed as it was not always possible to see or hear who was talking.
- Regarding whether Council’s resolution to record meetings should have already been implemented using current equipment, the Committee was informed that to undertake this still required an Executive decision.
- Regarding reasons for the omitting to mention in the Cabinet report the national trend amongst public bodies towards broadcasting of meetings and increasing transparency, accountability, openness and engagement with citizens, the Committee was informed that the report had been commissioned to look at equipment options only.
The Assistant Chief Executive (Legal Services) and Councillor Peck retired from the meeting. The Committee discussed the responses that had been given by them and concluded that the following concerns remained:
- All residents should be able to see Council meetings, improving transparency, accountability and citizen engagement with local decision-making.
- Further weight should be given to the equality impacts: webcasting of council meetings would increase access for disabled and elderly people unable to travel to the Town Hall, young people, and residents who are working when meetings are taking place.
- Full Council has already passed a resolution that meetings should be broadcast and this decision should be enacted. Cabinet was tasked to review this when Councillors from across the chamber agreed that Council should endeavour to have the meetings broadcast. The Committee was concerned that this decision has been ignored by the Executive, and also that it had taken so long to get to this point.
- The Committee also noted the lack of reference to the Government’s view about the greater need to hold public bodies to account, which broadcasts would go some way towards satisfying. The political environment in Tower Hamlets would suggest that viewing figures for webcasts of meetings could be higher than other areas canvassed by officers. Benchmarking information from other local authorities was therefore not deemed to be relevant.
- The Committee were moved to ask that the sound recording equipment be used for the next meeting.
· A complete record of meetings would encourage Members to improve their behaviour in Council meetings, a matter which was of increasing concern to members of the Committee.
· As it would be his decision to spend £25k on Option 3; the Committe asked the Mayor to reduce non-essential costs by not recruiting to the communication post that he had recently created and returning the new Mayoral car. This was seen as a reasonable request set against the fact that more residents would be able to see and hear what goes on at Council.
· The Committee was concerned that the officers’ report did not set out all the advantages and disadvantages of each option. While Option 4 (to not do anything) was presented very positively, other options were described negatively.
Members of the Committee agreed to refer Cabinet’s provisional decision back asking that further consideration to the views and concerns presented. These were that:
· Having considered the arguments, the Committee was of the view that Option 3 was therefore the best option – this would enable a good service, improving audibility and access to council meetings and maximising citizen engagement. The option could be funded by not recruiting to the Mayoral communications advisor and/or by the returning of the Mayor’s car.
· In the meantime, the Committee wished to propose that the existing system be returned to use immediately.
RESOLVED
That the call-in of Cabinet report “Recording / Webcasting Council Meetings” be referred back to Cabinet for further consideration on the basis of the above concerns.
Supporting documents:
-
05.1 Recording Webcasting Callin cover report, item 5.1
PDF 84 KB
-
05.1a Recording Webcasting Council mtgs Cabinet 070911 Final DG2508111519pm, item 5.1
PDF 90 KB