Saturday 10 December 2011

The promised footage...

As promised, here is the first footage of a meeting in GBC ever to be (legally) recorded by a member of the public. Apologies for some of the quality - although considering that this is amateur footage I'm pleased with it as a first attempt (if you can't hear it, you can turn it up!).

Sometimes the speakers are out of shot although most of what they say is audible. I hope that this puts some minds at rest and shows how useful this could be as a tool in helping councillors to keep us informed.

Please note:
- Youtube has a maximum video length of 15 minutes so these have been chopped into bite-size bits and arranged in chronological order.
- The last hour or so is still on it's way due to a technical issue involving a change of camera. Lesson learnt - bring a spare battery!

Very many thanks again to all of the supportive councillors and employees of GBC who helped to make this possible.

 

Friday 9 December 2011

The Times They Are A-Changin'

It is with tremendous delight that I am able to quote my musical hero and report that last night history was made in Guildford Borough Council. As far as I can tell, Guildford has had a council chamber since one was built on the Guildhall in 1683, and in the following 328 years no photos or recordings of any meeting have been made or published. I understand that, for at least a few hundred of these 328 years there were technological limitations as to what could be done, but times have indeed a-changed.

A photo like the one below has never been taken before. This was the very first frame from my footage. It's blurry, it's a bit wonky, but it's mine. And soon I hope that what it symbolises will belong to all of us.


This is a fantastic milestone on the path to an open, accountable, transparent and democratic council.

As a member of the public I was given permission to film the proceedings provided I undertook to provide the council with a copy of all footage and that I would comply with any legal requirements. For any other would-be citizen journalists, legal advice from the office of Eric Pickles is available here.

My motives on this are very clear - I want to be allowed to film at council meetings because I believe that in an open & honest democracy it should be a right.

Some of the advantages of allowing filming are already clear - so far I have had 3 requests from different members of the public for bits of the footage and will be delighted to help. I hope that one day in the near future these requests will be made directly to the council.

The main disadvantage is that a lot of what the councillors discuss is astonishingly dull, and you can end up with a lot of footage to support this.

My footage is being uploaded as I type this & will be posted on here in the near future. You are welcome to spend around 3 hours of your life viewing it - it's time that you won't get back but there are some real gems in there, mainly from members of the public. This includes people talking about a lack of consultation on the relocation of the bus station and residents from Shalford concerned about a lack of planning for the Stonebridge traveller site. All of these members of the public displayed a frustration at the lack of adequate consultation with and involvement of the community affected. I feel hugely encouraged that we have so much passion & commitment from within our community, and hope that this can be put to good use. Maybe next time this type of public involvement could even be carried out before lengthy reports are written telling us what we're going to have done to us?

As things stand at the moment, if you want to record a meeting at Millmead Council Chambers, you have to submit a request & the councillors consider your request, discuss it if they want to, and take a vote to decide whether or not to allow your request. I was pessimistic, for the reasons outlined in my earlier letters to the Surrey Advertiser.

Still, sometimes it's great to be wrong, and on this occasion I couldn't have hoped for a better outcome.

How did they vote? Here's a summary, colour-coded for political party:

FOR - Chapman, Creedy, Franklin, Freeman, French, Gillian, Goodwin, Gunning, Harwood, Hogger, Jackson, Juneja, McShane, McShee, May, Meredith, Nelson-Smith, Palmer, Phillips, Reeves, Rooth, Searle, Sutcliffe


AGAINST - Billington, Bright, Carpenter, Elms, Furniss, Garrett, Hewlett, Holliday, Hooper, Jordan, Lockyer-Nibbs, Mansbridge, Powell, Randall, Taylow, Wicks, Wright


An embarrassing amount of blue in the "AGAINST" group, but a nice mix up there from those who said "FOR". Maybe this would be a good starting point for the cross-party working group?

There was one abstention from the mayor Terence Patrick, who I think felt it was inappropriate to take either side - fair enough given his position. As far as I can tell, all Labour & Lib Dem councillors turned up, and 7 Conservative councillors (around a fifth) did not attend the meeting, preferring to stay home & watch X-Factor. (I made that bit up as there is no way of knowing, as far as I'm aware).

I was particularly encouraged to see that Tony Rooth, as Conservative council leader, voted to allow filming on this occasion, and although I am finding this hat rather chewy, I look forward to following the progress of the working group that he has promised will look into making the council more camera friendly.

To those who voted no, I hope that you will come round to the same way of thinking as your more progressive colleagues. It is not 1683 any more - we have wonderful technology that can be used to improve the way that you interact with your electorate. Hopefully your concerns will be somewhat allayed by the fact that no councillors were harmed in the making of this film.

Where next? This whole issue of filming is part of a much bigger debate about openness & transparency. My request was prompted by the 2 motions that I mentioned here on 30th November. The motions with several amendments were passed at the meeting, and I genuinely believe that the message might be getting through. It is up to all of us to continue to fight for better transparency, better involvement and better democracy from our council.

Below are the motions as passed. A great achievement for all of us!

This Council resolves:
 (1)        To investigate simple and efficient procedures to improve public participation at Council meetings and transparency of decision-making including, but not limited to, the following proposals:
(I)         To introduce a half hour Leader’s Question Time, where no notice of a question needs to be given, to give the public the opportunity to scrutinise the Council’s policies
(II)         To allow members of the public to submit motions to Council, for debate, up to 24 hours before the start of a Council meeting
(III)         To introduce webcasting of appropriate public meetings of the Council
(IV)         To allow any member of the public to use recording equipment at Council meetings.
(V) Decisions involving the disposal of significant Council assets are made in public, and are subject to call-in.
(VI)    Clearer descriptions of the items to be considered are included in the Forward Plan, so that both councillors and members of the public have more time to consider the topic and prepare representations.
(VII)       To consider such other proposals which may be suggested by councillors to improve transparency of decision-making and encourage greater involvement from the public.

(2)      To establish a cross-party Constitution working group (comprising three Conservatives, two Liberal Democrats and one Labour councillor) to carry out the investigations referred to in (1) above and to submit proposals for the Council’s consideration by May 2012.

Thursday 1 December 2011

My Surrey Ad Letter, printed 28/10/11 (and ignored!)

Tony Rooth claims that Guildford Borough Council is not a secret society (letters, Surrey Ad 21/10/11) but he has done his best, with the help of his Conservative colleagues, to make it as secretive as possible.  As a "strong leader" I feel that he has stifled debate and concealed the way that decisions are made. 

At a council meeting last year some students asked very politely if they could film a discussion on tuition fees - I watched this from the public gallery and was disgusted at the way the Conservatives, including Mr Rooth, treated the visitors (as detailed in my letter printed on 17/12/10) . All but 2 of the Conservative councillors voted to refuse the request. The Liberal Democrats voted unanimously to allow the filming but were outnumbered by the Conservatives. I am unable to think of any reason, other than wishing to maintain a shroud of secrecy, for refusing permission to film.

If they have nothing to hide, isn't it time that all council meetings were broadcast on the internet so that we can see what our elected representatives are up to? Surely the cost would be substantially less than that of the regular glossy propaganda brochures that we have delivered to our doors saying what a great job they're doing. What could they be up to that is so terrible it can't be broadcast in an uncensored form? Plenty of other councils manage this.

Recent changes to the way the council is run have resulted in one man (a "strong leader") having a huge amount of power and influence over how our money is spent running our town. Questions from the public are no longer debated and there is no opportunity to ask supplementary questions or query any reply. The system is an affront to democracy - and the council leader providing a URL for a load of dry, wordy & dull documents (as he did in his letter last week) would be funny if it was meant to be a joke.

Ollie Clokie
Guildford 

Wednesday 30 November 2011

Welcome...

...To this shiny new Blog, born out of a frustration at the lack of accountable decision making from Guildford Borough Council. Come, follow me on a journey as we seek to unravel the mysteries of how our elected representatives choose to spend our money on our town.


There are two excellent motions before the council next week in the meeting scheduled for 8th December at Millmead. One is proposed by a Labour councillor and one is proposed by a Liberal Democrat councillor. This should not be about politics - as you can see I quote a conservative MP in a moment. This is about local, transparent democracy.


Both motions seek to address the lack of transparency and accountability for the way that decisions are made (motion 9 & 10 on this link, also copied at the bottom of this page - http://www.guildford.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=10924&p=0 ). I intend to request permission to film the debate, so that it can be published here (don't worry, just the exciting bits!). This would help Guildford Borough Councillors to act upon the guidance from Conservative MP Bob Neill,  the Under Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government


Mr Neill's e-mail to council leaders is below, and in it he says, "There are recent stories about people being ejected from council meetings for blogging, tweeting or filming. This potentially is at odds with the fundamentals of democracy and I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience."


Thanks Bob, I'll see what I can do!



(Stuff I've quoted from is below in full, for those of you who like a bit more detail...).

Motion 9 & 10:

9. NOTICE OF MOTION (B) DATED 28 NOVEMBER 2011
 In accordance with Procedure Rule 7, Councillor Angela Gunning to propose and
Councillor Christian Gilliam to second the following motion:
 “This Council notes:
(a) The declining public participation in Council meetings
(b) The recent changes the Council has made to the procedures for public participation
in full Council meetings
(c) The current procedures Surrey County Council uses to encourage public
participation at meetings.
This Council believes:
(i) That public participation in Council meetings is an essential part of a vibrant local
democracy
(ii) That public participation in Council meetings provides members of the public the
opportunity to scrutinise the Council’s policies
(iii) That it should do everything it can to facilitate simple and efficient procedures to
allow the public to participate at Council meetings.
This Council therefore resolves:
(I) To introduce a half hour Leader’s Question Time, where no notice of a question
needs to be given, to give the public the opportunity to scrutinise the Council’s
policies.
(II) To allow members of the public to submit motions to Council, for debate, up to 24
hours before the start of a Council meeting
(III) To introduce live streaming of Council meetings on the internet
(IV) To allow any member of the public to use recording equipment at Council meetings.” 3

10. NOTICE OF MOTION (C) DATED 28 NOVEMBER 2011
 In accordance with Procedure Rule 7, Councillor Liz Hogger to propose and Councillor
Caroline Reeves to second the following motion:
“The Council notes recent events which have caused concern both to councillors and to
members of the public about lack of transparency in some of the Council's decisionmaking procedures:
(a)  A decision to sell the Constitutional Hall (170 High Street) at auction was made on
delegated authority with no consultation with councillors other than the local ward
councillors, no public announcement that the decision had been made, and no
opportunity to call-in the decision for scrutiny.
(b)  The Executive's decision to approve the preparation of a planning application for a
new bus station at Bedford Road car park was made on 20 October, even though
there was no mention of the bus station being discussed at that meeting in the
Council's Forward Plan published on 16 September.
(c)  A member of the public asked a question in writing at Council and received a written
reply with no debate and no opportunity to ask a supplementary question.
This Council therefore agrees to review the Constitution in consultation with all the political
groups to ensure that:
(i)  Decisions involving the disposal of significant Council assets are made in public at
an Executive meeting, and are subject to call-in.
(ii)  Clearer descriptions of the items to be considered are included in the Forward Plan,
so that both councillors and members of the public have more time to consider the
topic and prepare representations.
(iii)  Public involvement at meetings of the Council is encouraged, by measures such as
treating questions from the public in the same way as questions from councillors, so
allowing supplementary questions and comment from other councillors.
(iv)  Consideration is given to any other proposals which may be made by councillors to
improve transparency of decision-making and encourage greater involvement from
the public.”



Here is the full text of the letter from Bob Neill to Council Leaders and Monitoring Officers in February 2011:
As part of the Government's transparency drive I want to highlight the importance of your council giving citizens the opportunity to access and experience their local democracy using modern communication methods. It is essential to a healthy democracy that citizens everywhere are able to feel that their council welcomes them to observe local decision-making and through modern media tools keep others informed as to what their council is doing. The mainstream media also needs to be free to provide stronger local accountability by being able to film and record in meetings without obstruction.
online film, social media and hyper-local online news they should equally be open to 'Citizen Journalists' and filming by mainstream media. Bloggers, tweeters, residents with their own websites and users of Facebook and YouTube are increasingly a part of the modern world, blurring the lines between professional journalists and the public.
There are recent stories about people being ejected from council meetings for blogging, tweeting or filming. This potentially is at odds with the fundamentals of democracy and I want to encourage all councils to take a welcoming approach to those who want to bring local news stories to a wider audience. The public should rightly expect that elected representatives who have put themselves up for public office be prepared for their decisions to be as transparent as possible and welcome a direct line of communication to their electorate. I do hope that you and your colleagues will do your utmost to maximise the transparency and openness of your council.
I do recognise that there are obligations on whoever is filming or publishing information - be it the council itself or a citizen or mainstream journalist - under the Data Protection Act 1998. But I do not see these obligations as preventing access for journalism. Nor are there grounds for any council seeking to obstruct a citizen or other journalist from processing information. The Information Commissioner's Office has told us that:
  • In the absence of any other legal barrier to comment, publication, expression and so on, the Act in and of itself would not prevent such processing of information.
  • In the majority of cases the citizen blogging about how they see the democratic process working is unlikely to breach the data protection principles.
  • In the context of photographing or filming meetings, whilst genuine concerns about being filmed should not be dismissed, the nature of the activity being filmed - elected representatives acting in the public sphere - should weigh heavily against personal objections'.
Moreover there are within the Act itself exemptions from the data protection principles which might apply in the circumstances of the citizen journalist. The first exemption relates to processing of information for journalistic purposes (section 32), the second for the processing of information for domestic purposes (section 36).
In short transparency and openness should be the underlying principle behind everything councils do and in this digital age it is right that we modernise our approach to public access, recognising the contribution to transparency and democratic debate that social media and similar tools can make.
I copy this letter to your monitoring officer given their responsibility for advising on your council's procedures and decision-making arrangements.
Bob Neill MP