Issue - meetings

The Civic Affairs Committee NOTED that the issue of the Council recording its public meetings was an executive function and that this would therefore be considered by the relevant Portfolio Holder or Cabinet, taking into account the views put forward by Members at this meeting.

Graham Watts, Democratic Services Team Leader, introduced this item and highlighted that an oversight had occurred in respect of the report.  He explained that the Civic Affairs Committee had previously considered the issue of whether the Council should record its public meetings alongside the introduction of the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014, and the initial guidance published in 2013, in terms of the respective constitutional amendments that were required at that time to comply with this legislation.

This item originally sought a recommendation from the Civic Affairs Committee to Council as to whether it should introduce the provision of recording its public meetings, but Mr Watts explained that as no constitutional amendment was necessary as a result of this decision it would now fall under the Council’s executive functions.  This meant that any decision on the issue would need to be taken by the relevant Portfolio Holder or Cabinet.

It was emphasised that the report only showed some of the technical options available to support the Council recording its own meetings and that further work would be undertaken to fully explore all of the options available. 

The Chairman invited Members of the Civic Affairs Committee to put forward their views on the principle of the Council recording its public meetings, further to which the following comments were noted:

·         the Council should record its public meetings in order that it had an official recording that could be uploaded onto the website for people to view, rather than relying solely on recordings uploaded to sites such as YouTube or social media by members of the public;

·         there was already enough pressure on officer time and the introduction of any facility for the Council to record its meetings would incur officer resource;

·         meetings were already open to the public so people already had the opportunity to attend, listen to debates and even participate in some cases;

·         the cost of any facility introduced should be kept as low as possible;

·         the provision for the Council to record its meetings was about openness and transparency, with any reluctance to support such an initiative perhaps being a generational issue;

·         times had changed and in view of the fact that members of the public were entitled to film meetings the Council should provide its own record of proceedings, but it should be done properly with visual and sound recordings being of sufficient quality;

·         it was inevitable that Councils would be compelled to provide recordings of their meetings in the future at some stage, so the Council may as well put the facility in place now prior to being required to do so;

·         the Council could record meetings on an adhoc basis when there was significant public interest in a particular item, rather than committing to record all meetings;

·         providing recordings of meetings would be a useful way of encouraging more people to get involved in local government and play a more active role in their communities.

The Civic Affairs Committee NOTED that the issue of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

The Civic Affairs Committee supported option 4, as set out in the report, and AGREED to maintain the existing arrangement of not installing, contracting or providing any specific facility or system for the Council to itself record its public meetings.

The Civic Affairs Committee considered a report which provided Members with an overview of the technical options available to facilitate the filming or recording of the Council’s public meetings.  Options included:

·         contracting a third party supplier and that webcasting be introduced for some or all of the Council’s public meetings, so that the authority could film and stream its proceedings live on its website;

·         internally filming or recording some or all of the Council’s public meetings, so that the video and audio feed could be relayed to other parts of the building as an overflow arrangement in circumstances whereby the public gallery could not accommodate the number of people wishing to attend;

·         internally filming some or all of the Council’s public meetings and providing a link to the footage on its website after the meeting had been held, with the footage not being live.  This option could also provide a video or audio broadcast relayed to other parts of the building to facilitate an overflow arrangement;

·         not installing, contracting or providing any specific facility or system for the filming or recording of the Council’s public meetings.

The following points were made by Members during discussion:

·         the public now had the right to film meetings themselves, so the Council should retain its existing arrangements.  Members of the public did already film meetings, with the Greater Cambridge City Deal Executive Board and Joint Assembly cited as examples;

·         it would be difficult for the Council to choose which meetings it decided to film should any arrangements to facilitate this be put in place;

·         it was difficult to justify the additional costs and officer time that would be required to introduce the recording or filming of meetings;

·         the public appetite for watching Council meetings online was difficult to determine.  A Member had searched on YouTube for a recent public meeting from another authority which had only received 50 ‘hits’.  With such low viewing figures it would be difficult to justify the capital costs required;

·         it was a matter of time before local authorities would be made to film their meetings, so the Council should introduce filming or recording at the earliest opportunity;

·         a recent meeting of the Cambourne Police Panel was put forward as an example where filming took place and was live-streamed.  If Police Panels could ensure that their meetings were recorded or filmed then the District Council should make the same provision;

·         the Council should not rely on members of the public turning up to meetings to film them and should make its own arrangements;

·         it would be preferable for the Council to have an official recording of meetings to signpost people to, rather than relying on a version that had been filmed from another third party.  A problem with other people filming meetings and the Council not having its own version was that approach was that the external person would have full editorial control.  The third option set out in the report was therefore a reasonable compromise;

·         the Council should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4