Agenda item
Transparency Commission
1. Open Data – experience of London Borough of Redbridge
A document on the Data Share scheme is provided for consideration.
2. Open Data – perspective from Socrata
A document by Socrata is provided for consideration.
3. Unions’ perspective – Unison
4. Unions’ perspective – Unite (written submission only)
A written submission by the Unite Union representative is provided for consideration.
5. Update on responses to the Transparency Commission
(Documents to follow)
6. Empowering Ward Members
A written submission by Councillor Golds is provided for consideration.
Minutes:
(i) Open Data – The experience of the London Borough of Redbridge
The Committee received and noted a presentation that provided a focus on the tools used by the local authority to share information with the public, through the use of web technology. A summary of the discussions on this presentation is outlined below:
The Committee heard that:
- The use of web technology to provide the public with easy access to data would have been impossible without it being driven by the Chief Executive of the Redbridge Council and its Corporate Management Team;
- Use of this innovative platform has substantially increased the range of data available to local residents, supporting the Council’s move towards making its data more accessible, increasing transparency, and driving service improvement;
- Redbridge’s approach to publishing data is informed by customer demand. In preparing the platform they established themes by examining the information that residents and others have asked for, for example through Freedom of Information requests. They then used this knowledge to select which datasets to prioritise publishing;
- The number of Freedom of Information requests had reached a plateau since the introduction of the new web technology, although it was unclear if this was the main reason;
- There is tool on the web page in relation to the budget setting process
(ii) Open Data – Perspective from Socrata
The Committee received and noted a presentation from Socrata a privately-held cloud software company headquartered in Seattle with offices in Washington, D.C. and London. The core team consists of software engineers, designers, open government advocates, and business professionals.
The presentation provided an outline on how Socrata through the use of smart technologies and digital connectivity has helped local and national governments meet environmental, social and economic challenges and opportunities, through opening up their data.
It was noted that there are a range of different arguments for open government data e.g. some advocates contend that making government information available to the public as machine readable open data can facilitate government transparency, accountability and public participation. Some make the case that opening up official information can support technological innovation and economic growth by enabling third parties to develop new kinds of digital applications and services i.e. to make it easier for residents, researchers and developers to access, analyse and share information. This could allow new solutions to the borough’s challenges to be developed.
(iii) The Unions’ Perspective – Unison
The Committee received and noted a presentation that provided a focus on what Unison felt was required to ensure that there is transparency in governance.
The Committee heard that:
- Unison believes that there were significant problems with the quantity, quality and integrity of the information shared with residents and staff about proposed changes to council services during the 2014 Your Borough Your Voice public consultation;
- Improvements need to be made if future public consultations are to be genuine and meaningful. This should include sufficient detail of what is being proposed and an honest appraisal of the potential risks and dependencies that changing or stopping a service may bring;
- Unison would wish to see greater information sharing about key policies such as the consideration of outsourcing, shared services and strategic partnerships;
- Unison believes that there should be as wide a consultation as possible at the earliest possible stage, when policy on matters such as procurement are being considered, especially with key stakeholders, one of which is the Trade Unions;
- Unison believes that LBTH should adopt a culture of preference for disclosure and openness in procurement, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that it is not possible for compelling legal or other reasons;
- In the shadow of high profile social care failures such as in Rotherham, it is the union’s view that to facilitate transparency in governance this must be taken forward with genuine intent. The focus should not simply being on ‘tweaking’ or publicising current procedures, but rather on learning lessons from the past and developing strategies that move the organisational culture forward;
- Unison has mechanisms in place to address issues of serious concern, and that they will if necessary meet with councillors to address a particular situation.
- Unison were concerned that staff were reluctant to speak up about perceived serious wrongdoing because of a perception that the working culture discouraged this;
- The Social Work Health Check had recommended an exercise /strategy must be developed to increase worker confidence in the council’s Whistleblowing policy. This should include Trade Union involvement.
The Chair Moved and it was:-
RESOLVED
That the service be invited to respond to Unisons concerns that staff were reluctant to speak up about perceived serious wrongdoing because of a perception that the working culture discouraged this.
(iv) The Unions Perspective – Unite
The Committee Received and noted a briefing paper in which Unite outlined the following views:
- Availability of one copy of the agenda at the Town Hall Reception at 5pm, or later, on the statutory publication date does not comply with the spirit of the statute Posting or couriering the next day, or later ,significantly reduces the opportunity for Members/public to read/digest the contents of the agenda and engage with the decision making process;
- The agenda should, unless there are very exceptional circumstances, contain all minutes/ reports detailed on the agenda rather than an agenda with several reports marked ‘to follow’ and then late publication/circulation of several supplementary agendas 1 or 2 days later. This approach is not conducive to fully informed discussion and smooth decision making by Members, who may not have received all the papers or who have to flick between several agenda packs to find the information they feel merits discussion. Again it significantly reduces the opportunity for Members or the public to read/digest and engage with the decision making process. A new approach would require a directive from the new Chief Executive and Corporate Management Team support.
Unite also identified steps which it felt would facilitate transparency in governance:
- That Cabinet/ Committee agendas are published and circulated in accordance with the spirit of statutory Access to Information requirements (5 working days before a meeting);
- The restoration of the provision within the Council’s Constitution for public deputations at Cabinet/Committee meetings providing appropriate notice is given and criteria met (as with petitions) and would increase the scope for engagement and controversial debate;
- Review of the criteria around exemption of Cabinet/ Committee reports from publication to ensure it is fit for purpose. There should be a mechanism, independent of Officers and Mayor/Members involved in the decision making process, to validate the legitimacy of exemption from publication of reports e.g. the Chair of OSC (as with urgent decision making); the Speaker of Council or the Chair of Standards Committee?;
- More Council meetings should be held outside the Town Hall, whether in Council buildings or community venues, as the accessibility of Mulberry Place does not assist public engagement with the decision making process; and
- The Council and Democracy webpage should be made easier to navigate.
(v) Update on responses to the Transparency Commission
The Committee received and noted a presentation that provided an update on the outcome of the consultation which had explored views about:
- The extent to which the Council keeps residents informed about what it does, what it spends and how decisions are made;
- Views about the quality of information provided;
- Views around how effectively, and openly, the Council engages and consults with residents; and
- Open comments invited on all areas and residents asked for suggestions for improvement.
As a result of discussions on the presentation the Committee:
- Indicated that they wanted to have the opportunity to consider the accountability of the Commissioners and that East End Life could be used to provide more details of their role;
- Noted that the submissions would be considered with all the data received and would feed into the proposals going forward;
- Noted that a community engagement strategy was being developed and that the Somali Task Group would be involved in the development of this strategy;
- It was noted that the Council for Voluntary Service had been used to provide a link between the Council and the Third Sector although other ways of engagement are being considered;
- Stated that it felt that using only the Council for Voluntary Service would reach a limited number of organisations; and that more use should be made of the Idea Stores and Children Centres as means to increase the reach to the Third Sector; and
- Indicated that it would like to see the time frame for taking forward engagement with the Third Sector.
(vi) Empowering Ward Members
The Committee received and noted a report on the involvement of non-executive ward councillors in participatory budgeting models. In particular:
- This has been a topic that has been considered in ongoing legislation since the establishment of the strong leader/cabinet model and later the executive mayoral model of local government. Many councils allocate a fund for ward budgets, providing elected members with flexibility in the deployment of their allocated Ward Budgets within the powers available to them under the Localism Act;
- Elected Members have the power to approve projects if, in their opinion, they address an issue of local need;
- Ward budget funding support is normally only eligible for individual projects for a maximum of one financial year.
Supporting documents:
- Open Data – experience of London Borough of Redbridge, item 6.1 PDF 1 MB
- Open Data – perspective from Socrata, item 6.1 PDF 3 MB
- Open Data – presentation from Socrata, item 6.1 PDF 709 KB
- UNISON, item 6.1 PDF 537 KB
- UNITE, item 6.1 PDF 60 KB
- Update on responses to the Transparency Commission, item 6.1 PDF 296 KB
- Empowering Ward Members, item 6.1 PDF 77 KB