10 ways to make council meetings better: #piug12

At the Public-i User Group on Monday we spent our afternoon discussing ‘Rebooting Democracy’.

It was a stimulating, wide-ranging discussion that ended on a focussed note as we drew up a list of the things we’d change about council meetings and things we’d keep the same. I thought I’d draw the changes into a list, below. While we were shooting from the hip, I think a lot of people will agree that som are sensible and a few even possible! We’re in a period of real change for local government, with the Police and Crime Commissioners ahead of us and many cities considering elected mayors, so we think now might just be the time to start seeing how we can improve the central theatre of local democracy, too.

This is really about modernising meetings. We’re still carrying out our democratic process in much the same way that we did in the 19th century, despite huge changes in technology and society. Sometimes, in the case of Westminster perhaps, that can be treated as an indication of the process’s success. But I’m not sure anyone at the user group, online or in the room, would have claimed that we can’t do better!

  1. Plain English: One of the biggest barriers in the way of more engagement in meetings and local democracy is the use of council jargon. Finding ways to remove jargon, or explain language when it does need to be precise, would make meetings easier for people to undersand and take part in.
  2. Better timekeeping and shorter meetings: Anyone who has sat through council meetings will know that some have a tendency to… drag. While big decisions need to be made without pressure, we could still find ways to ensure they run to time and aren’t excessively long. As Lesley Blue from Camden pointed out, huge amounts of time, effort and organisation go into meetings. When they overrun it’s dispiriting and draining on those involved. It is also a problem for the public, who may find themselves leaving a meeting before the item they’re interested in is discussed, or having to return at a later date.
  3. Change the representatives: We know that it’s hard for many people to get into local politics – and ensuring that people from different backgrounds, with different perspectives can become involved is essential to ensuring that meetings are a genuine reflection of the communities they serve.
  4. End minute taking and…
  5. Explain the process: While meetings are hard to understand, we may have to find ways of giving the public a better grip on what’s happening in them. Damian Beaumont from Cheshire West and Chester suggested that with a full digital record of council meetings now available (through audio and video recording) we may be able to do away with minute taking – and, instead, enable democratic services officers to do more to help guide the public – and act as advocates for them in the decision-making process.
  6. Don’t hide agreements and decisions: Mathew Jellings, of Public-i, recalled an 11-hour budget meeting that was interrupted for a half-hour break in which oppposing parties came to an agreement. We should try to ensure that important decisions are made where possible in full view.
  7. More questions! Make it easier for the public to participate: One suggestion was to look at how we can change meetings to take advantage of the web more – allowing people outside the meeting to influence proceedings, through questions and other input. Technology already makes this feasible – it’s law, procedure and possibly culture that are getting in the way.
  8. Less formality: Matt Bond of Cornwall Council suggested we could look to hold meetings in less formal venues. He mentioned (and this in no way reflects on any of us, I promise) a pub – but finding venues that reflect the meeting and bring them closer to the communities they serve (when this is appropriate) could ensure a greater view of local democracy and soften and humanise the whole process.
  9. Hold meetings before you’ve made a decision, not afterwards: We know that the real decision making and thinking may long precede the meeting. If the point of meetings is to make the process of decision-making transparent, rubber stamping should be stamped out.
  10. Time to be agile: Meeting agendas are often set five weeks in advance of the actual meeting. While it might take an overhaul of other processes thorughout councils to do this, moving to a more agile system that allows meetings to better reflect citizens’ (and councils’) objectives could make meetings more relevant and councils more responsive.

Here’s Catherine summing up after the discussion:

 

Loading…

Tags:

Public-i user group: A quick review #piug12

We had a brilliant, enjoyable user group yesterday at the Hallam conference centre in London. Quite a bit happened, so I’m not going to try to cover everything – there’ll be a chance to do that with some reflective blogging in the coming few days (and weeks).

But, before we get distracted, I thought I’d run through some of the points that were made… so…

In the morning

  • Ady and Lewis took us through the technology roadmap. Highlights included plans for the release in May, in particular a responsive design enabling a single user interface for Connect and Citizenscape that will work equally well for all devices.
  • Ady said we’re looking into how we can develop an open API for Connect and Citizenscape and mentioned our interest in offering open data from the platforms.
  • The May release will see the launch of Connect Social, of which there’ll be more soon. I don’t want to go into this too much, because it’s a major release and should be communicated in more detail, but it will include new things, such as pay gate, user identity for interactivity and more.
  • Catherine talked about our thoughts on the design of the player – and she’ll be blogging very soon on this issue!
  • We talked about some of the developments that those at the meeting and watching online might like to see. They included:-
    • We talked about how iPads and other mobile devices (Android) can view the player. There was agreement that this is important, and there was a reiteration that this will be taken care of in the May release.
    • We discussed instant archiving: While Public-i felt this is possible, we did identify a need to investigate just how it could be achieved for clients in a simple and safe way. Andy Moynihan from Surrey suggested that it might be possible to introduce a check box for operators to tick when they are happy it’s OK to immediately archive a webcast.
    • We also had a good chat about how we might incorporate video conferencing into the webcasts.

In the afternoon

There was a round-table discussion after lunch on Rebooting Democracy – which Catherine introduced in this post last week. There were fantastic contributions from everyone, in particular Andrew Wallis, an independent councillor in Cornwall, who was invited to come down and help stir up debate (I’ll publish my video interview with him asap). We got through an awful lot, including:-

  • The advent of the PCCs and elected mayors – and the impact this could have on local democracy.
  • The need for us to find new ways to involve more people (and different demographics) in the democratic process.
  • The role of technology in opening up democracy.
  • How we might ensure that we are better informed decisions locally.
  • The localism agenda – and to what extent it is genuinely transferring power down to local government.

We finished by talking more specifically about how council meetings might be improved in the future. There were some great suggestions and my next task will be to put these into another blog post, as a point for further discussion! If there’s anything you think I’ve missed here please tell me. And you can watch the whole webcast – accompanied by the live blog and chat from the day here. Thanks!

Tags:

Rebooting democracy: Setting the debate #piug12

Public-i user group

On Monday the 19th of March, we’ll be sitting down for the Public-i user group, which will feature an afternoon discussion, themed ‘Rebooting Democracy’. So it seemed like a good idea to explain what we’re thinking – and to kick off the debate. You can get involved on the day by watching and chatting here on the day and tweeting with the hashtag #piug12…

Rebooting democracy

If you wanted to make sure that the public was able to participate in democracy would you really run council meetings in the way that we do right now? Process and purpose have been layered and changed over years and what we have ended up with looks and feels alien to anyone not involved on a day-to-day basis. Forget about the technology, the language alone tells us the public is not welcome. There are good reasons why local democracy operates the way it does and it is pretty difficult to imagine radical change of processes which are so culturally embedded. I’m not saying it’s impossible but it’s going to be hard.

I think that much of the change will be and has been incremental. When we started trying to persuade people to webcast their meetings we had a fairly non-plussed response (though that may have been down to the idea that you could view video over a 56k modem!) but, 10 years later, streaming meetings is now an established practice.

We probably don’t want to wait that long for the next major change in the way in which meetings are run.

The democratic process is so rooted in tradition, culture and power that we very rarely take it apart and examine it. There is an additional challenge, too: the unspoken fear that we may be using the arcanity of the process to cover up the fact that the underlying debate is not actually good enough to show people.

With the arrival of the elected Police and Crime Commissioners, and a cohort of newly elected Mayors turning up soon, we are going to be seeing changes in local democracy that might offer us the chance to look at the process and redefine how we want it to work. This should mean looking at the world as it is today and creating a process which works for people as they live their lives right now. And yes – this will probably involve better use of technology.

We’re going to try and contribute to this debate: we are already talking to police authorities about what the new PCC posts might mean and we’re going to use the user group to debate this a bit more. It’s a good place to talk abou this because it brings together people – either in person or online – who care a great deal about the democratic process and we think they are an excellent starting point if we are going to really take the council meeting apart and put it back together. We’ll let you know how we get on but feel free to contribute here.

Tags:

Re-booting Democracy: the Public-i user group – 19th of March, 2012

Nick Booth at Public-i User Group

We’ll be holding the next Public-i user group on Monday the 19th of March with the rather exciting theme ‘rebooting democracy’. Below I’ve set out a little bit about what we mean by that – and the agenda.

But first, the essentials…

  • The user group starts at 10.30am on the 19th of March at the Hallam Conference Centre, 44 Hallam Street, London, W1W 6JJ.
  • If you’d like to come along then please contact Jane Purcell – her email address is jane.purcell@public-i.info and telephone +44(0)1273 821282.
  • To watch and join the debate online, visit our interactive player on the day. We’ll be webcasting and live blogging – so you can asks questions and put your point across to those in the room.

Rebooting democracy

We’re looking at a remarkable time for local democracy – with so many changes in the offing it’s hard to mention them all.

Close to home we’re seeing the creation of city mayors and directly elected Police and Crime Commissioners for England and Wales – as well as the independence debate and proposals for a single police force in Scotland. At the same time, of course, there’s a techonological revolution taking place that offers the potential to reshape the relationship authorities and their representatives can have with the public everywhere.

With so much (digital) disruption and devolution in the offing, we thought it would be a good time to debate how we might fundamentally re-shape democracy for the 21st century. We hope to have a wide-open debate about what we could dream of doing to make political decision making better and more responsive in the future. Such an exciting time, we think, calls for an exciting – and daring – debate!

Catherine at a Public-i User Group

The agenda

As ever, there’ll be the usual highlights to the user group, including Dr Lewis’s surgery, more news about our products and the development roadmap update, before we get on with the debate in the afternoon…

10.30am Welcome and introductions

11am Development roadmap:

  • Update on Connect
  • Opportunity to add to the roadmap

12pm Dr Lewis’s Surgery – Best practice exchange:

  • Get technical questions answered
  • Find out about or make requests for product developments

1pm Lunch

2pm Panel discussion – Reboot Democracy – Some ideas to get started:

  • Do we need formal meetings?
  • How do we create more direct representation?
  • What skills are we going to need?

4pm AOB, drinks and twiglets

See you there!

Tags:

Social Media Audits and renewable energy in Cambridgeshire: using the audit to start engagement

Sheryl at the final CRIF event in November 2011

As part of a series of posts about our Social Media Audits, we’ll be providing examples of how we tackled each project and the benefits it helped to establish for our clients. This first example is from the Cambridgeshire Renewable Infrastructure Framework, and it tells the story of how we used the audit to introduce our then client, Cambridgeshire Horizons, to the online community of people talking about renewable energy in the county.

The challenge
Cambridgeshire Horizons was commissioned in 2010 to identify the future energy needs of the county and how this could be supported by renewable energy delivery. The project, known as Cambridgeshire Renewables Infrastructure Framework (CRIF) would set out how the county should increase its renewable-energy capacity. Horizons asked Public-i to engage residents, business and the public sector in a complex and politically sensitive project that would involve discussing divisive issues, including things like wind-turbine development.

The strategy
We set out to provide what we called a ‘digitally led’ engagement strategy. This would start by finding people online who were already interested in renewable energy, before involving these individuals in developing and informing the project and helping to take the message of the CRIF to communities across the county.

Finding online communities
By working closely with our client to understand Cambridgeshire’s geographical, social and political make-up, Public-i devised a taxonomy to pick out social-web conversations about renewable energy and related subjects. We then qualified and codified these results before looking in detail at the results, which included identifying the individuals behind the groups and offering analysis of the conversations. Finally, we developed an overall strategy for engaging with these groups and individuals.

The audit provided value for the client in several different ways:-

  • The community: Public-i provided a detailed breakdown of the people using social media to talk about renewable energy – finding the real individuals behind online groups and personas. We considered the relationships between them, using social network analysis, to identify who were the most well-networked and helpful to the engagement process.
  • The numbers: The audit offered a statistical analysis of the activity for Cambridgeshire Horizons to help determine the best ways to communicate and engage with the online audience. In total, the audit found more than 300 websites and social media identities that were relevant to the project.
    • Catherine Howe estimated the reach that we gained as a direct result of using the Social Media Audit as the basis for the communication and engagement strategy.

      Estimated Potential Reach:-

      • Reachable followers on Twitter: 14,000
      • Members of Facebook groups: 19,300
      • 34 hyperlocal websites – if we estimate reach of 300 people then that’s an audience of 10,200
      • 20 significant individuals who are communicating to many more people
  • Providing insight: The audit found positive and negative conversations – offering an understanding of the strength of feeling for and against renewable energy and shedding light on the views these groups had and how they might affect the engagement.
  • Helping offline engagment: The audit was able to help us establish people who were able to carry the message of the CRIF to offline as well as online networks and communities.
  • Joining the conversation: By carefully coding the results, we could see not just who was talking but could understand more about what they were saying. This enabled the CRIF team to join in existing conversations – and ensure the message was relevant to their audience.

CRIF first event - discussing community energy generation

What happened:-

  • The results from the Social Media Audit became the backbone for the engagement strategy. The CRIF project team invited those who were found online to a series of engagement events – which the client feels were invaluable in helping to build a relationship between the public and the project.
  • Public-i developed a blog and used its Citizenscape platform to collect social media activity from the people that we found to help to continue and bolster the engagement process.
  • More events are planned, with the CRIF expected to be delivered in early 2012.

What the client says
Sheryl French was the project leader for the CRIF, working first for Cambridgeshire Horizons and then Cambridgeshire County Council, when the project transferred to the local authority’s control. She says that the audit has proved an invaluable tool for the CRIF team in discovering who the communities they need to engage with are.

She says: “At the start of our project we knew that engaging with our local community online was important, but we only really knew the most prolific and vocal few in our area.

“The social media audit identified the potential for online dialogue in our area and was an invaluable insight into how local residents use social media and what topics they’re actually discussing, and therefore interested in. We are now able to harness this ‘people power’ to help spread our project messages further.

“It has also been good to meet the online enthusiasts face to face. Without the social media audit we would have been blind to these discussions and these important people.”

Now
Our work on the CRIF itself is now at an end: The CRIF report, the culmination of this stage of the project, has been written and handed to decision makers at Cambridgeshire Local Authorities, the Environment Agency and representatives from the Developer and Registered Social Landlords . That report incorporates a huge effort, from all of the people involved in the CRIF – those who were part of the project team, as well as the many people brought into the process from the three pathways – community, business and public sector.

Improvement East, which part funded the CRIF alongside Housing Growth Funds, has since commissioned Public-i to develop a case study so that the strategy we’ve developed for the CRIF becomes a replicable programme for engagement and consultation work elsewhere. We’re looking forward to that case study becoming available soon – and we’ll keep you up to date on what happens here on the blog.

It’s allowed us to look at everything we’ve done on the CRIF – in terms of the engagement and how the SMA helped that process (often in unexpected ways!). While this post makes some of that clear, we’re still learning and I’d love to hear if other people have any thoughts on this kind of process – would you use it? Could the SMA help in other ways?

Tags:

© 2011 Public-i Group Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Blog powered by Wordpress and a Public-i version of the Magatheme theme.