Agenda item

The Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submits a report that provides an update on the Ward Community Meetings Improvement Project. A draft Councillor Guide, and sample guide are also attached and the Neighbourhood Services and Community Involvement Scrutiny Commission (NSCI) is asked to note the reports and to make any comments or observations as appropriate.

The following reports are appended to the agenda:

C1: Ward Community Meeting Improvement Project – Initial Evaluation Results.

C2:Ward Community Meeting Improvement Project – The Councillor Guide.

C3: Sample Councillor Guide (Evington).

The Ward Community Meeting Improvement Project: Initial Evaluation Results

The Director for Delivery, Communications and Political Governance submitted a report that highlighted the findings and evaluations from the first 15 months of the Ward Community Meeting Improvement Project.

The Project Portfolio Manager stated that the pilot project was due to close at the end of January 2014. A further report would be brought back to the commission in March with a more complete evaluation and a clearer objective for the future arrangements for ward community meetings.

The Chair welcomed the honesty of the report given previous reports had some inaccuracies. The Chair expressed some concerns that the purpose of the pilot appeared to have changed although this had not been communicated to ward councillors The Chair requested clarity of the transitional arrangements and better communications with all councillors (not just the councillors involved in the community meeting pilots). The Chair stated she had met with officers outside of the meeting to clarify these issues to ensure future reports gave a clearer picture. The Chair noted that the Director of Delivery, Communications and Political Governance had stated in the previous meeting, that a letter would be sent to councillors before Christmas to inform them of the transitional arrangements and the future of ward meetings, but the report indicated that this was planned for January. The Project Portfolio Manager explained that this communication had been delayed to ensure clarity of information however she could confirm that this would be sent out in January

The Project Portfolio Manager advised that pilot councillors would be invited to a meeting to give their feedback of the pilot as part of the final evaluation. This meeting would then be transcribed and checked by councillors to form their feedback.  The Chair welcomed this initiative but stated that written evaluations and hard evidence from councillors were needed as well as previously there had been inaccuracies in the information provided which may have got lost in translation. Members questioned whether any feedback given would actually change anything. The Chair expressed concerns that the Members who had taken part in the scheme may have had their expectations raised as to potential outcomes at the end of the pilot, and asked that expectations are managed during the feedback sessions.  The Chair requested that officers bring the raw anonymised feedback from councillors to the meeting in February.

Updated attendance figures from the pilot community meetings were circulated to all present for Members’ consideration. A query was raised as to whether officers compiling the figures differentiated between partners/officers who were present and members of the public. The Project Portfolio Manager explained that although the meeting evaluation forms requested this information, it was not always provided. Members heard that the pilot had demonstrated that in respect of community meetings, ‘one size did not fit all’ and it was all about providing the best option for the area.

Members discussed the publicity for community meetings and comments were made that more effective means of communication were needed. It was felt that the current methods were not working and there was a concern that many of the leaflets that went through people’s letterboxes were thrown away unread. Members felt the pilot had missed an opportunity to explore social media and other communication methods. The Assistant City Mayor for Community Involvement, Partnerships and Equalities stated that in her ward, which was not in the pilot, leaflets were delivered and information sent electronically and there was always a good attendance at community meetings. The Chair made reference to her own experience as being part of the pilot scheme and noted the inconsistent approach to the use of e-mail during the pilot. The Chair commented that new ways of communication were needed and while there was a need to be cautious, new ways might be found through social media, such as Facebook.

Members asked that the Community Engagement Officers be tasked to promote the community meetings and also suggested that the meetings could be publicised though schools, churches and community centres, at their fetes, coffee mornings, working men’s clubs, social gatherings or fundraising events. It was further suggested that information and literature about community meetings could be distributed to local groups.

The Chair asked if a timeline for the transitional arrangements had been agreed yet. Officers stated that discussions were still ongoing and there needed to be some dialogue with the Executive Members first but information would be shared with councillors soon.

The Chair concluded the discussion and stated that as there was a change in responsibilities for delivering the community meetings, the councillors would need to talk to the Community Engagement Officers to identify what they wanted to try out in their ward. The Chair requested that:

·         There be clarity of the transitional arrangements

·         There be effective communications with all councillors about the future of community meetings and the expected transition

·         The WCM Improvement Project is re-branded to WCM transitional arrangements

·         Best practice examples are gathered in order to give councillors a glossary of options to consider

·         Written evaluations and hard evidence on councillors’ feedback on the pilot scheme experience be produced with raw data shared in the February meeting

RESOLVED:

that the comments of the commission be noted and that the raw data feedback be brought to scrutiny in February 2014.

Ward Community Meeting Improvement Project: The Councillor Guide

Councillor Sood, the Assistant City Mayor for Community Involvement, Partnerships and Equalities introduced a report which provided information on the Councillor Guide. The Project Portfolio Manager explained that she had spoken to some of the councillors in the pilot wards, and it appeared from the feedback received, that the guide was helpful for new councillors. The views of the commission were also sought.

The following comments were made:

·         The guide would be helpful for new councillors and useful at their induction.

·         It would need updating regularly – perhaps by replacing a specific page as necessary rather than the whole guide. An electronic version would be helpful, particularly one which could be updated regularly for example by linking to a smart phone or the council’s website.

·         The guide was too generic and it would be useful to have more information specific to the relevant ward.

·         The population overview was useful but it needed to be in the context of the rest of the city.

·         The guide was not detailed enough.

·         It would be useful to have a list of contacts, community services, neighbourhood officers and other key officers in the guide.

·         It would be useful to have a ward map with key buildings/facilities in the ward highlighted.

·         It might also be useful to have details of the costs to carry out work for minor jobs / improvements in the ward such as dropped kerbs and ‘H’ Marking.

·         It would be helpful to have bullet points in the guide to make it easier to read and a little less ‘wordy’.

·         It would be helpful to have information on who to contact for languages translation.

·         The guide included ideas for layouts for community meetings, but this was not necessary.

·         In fairness to officers, any councillor guide needed to be led by councillors themselves.

RESOLVED:

                        that the comments of the commission be noted.