Article

|
Let's Talk (previously Listening to You, but that's probably a bit close to The Thick of It's 'Here to Hear')
Let’s Talk (previously Listening to You, but that’s probably a bit close to The Thick of It‘s ‘Here to Hear’)

The Shaftesbury ward ‘Let’s Talk’ event takes place a week today, Thursday, 21 March from 7.30pm at Shaftesbury Park school.

The meetings are an opportunity for residents to come and tell local councillors and council officers what is important to them. There’s no need to register so you can just come along.

Having advertised it I am, as I did last time, going to say that I’m not a great fan of them. They seem somehow dated and not representative of the way I think councils and councillors should do business. Is a public meeting really the sort of place that people want to come to raise their concerns? Or would they prefer more direct contact where there is dialogue and the opportunity to discuss detail without everyone else in the room having to listen in?

As I wrote after the last meeting:

The large (or small, in this case) public meeting … is probably the best way to handle a single issue with significant public interest and are useful when the flow of information is largely from the platform to the public. However, in my opinion it just doesn’t work for the sort of session Listening to You [the old branding for the sessions] should be, a dialogue between council and residents, and an opportunity for people to raise specific issues …

But I can’t help reflecting that, with around 30 people attending, it represented 0.00% (rounded to 2 decimal places) of the ward population [and] we are missing some tricks in the way we engage (or don’t engage) with residents and that leaves the council poorer: because if last night was a positive experience with around 0.0025% of the population, imagine what could come from 99.9975% of the population.

But having dealt with my negativity, there is always the opportunity to talk directly with councillors or officers before or after the meeting, and if numbers permit I would hope we follow the pattern that happened last time with a short formal session followed by a much longer, and much more productive, session of mingling, talking about and dealing with the issues and concerns of local residents.

There are some (but not much) more details on the council’s flyer for the event.

Article

|
A few more people attended in the end... but there were still plenty of empty seats.

I was a little cynical going to the Shaftesbury Listening to You session last night. I may as well lay my cards on the table, I have never liked the meetings. Not because of any reluctance to be accountable or to discuss council issues, but because I do not think they are very good examples of engagement.

The large (or small, in this case) public meeting may have its place. It is probably the best way to handle a single issue with significant public interest and are useful when the flow of information is largely from the platform to the public. However, in my opinion it just doesn’t work for the sort of session Listening to You should be, a dialogue between council and residents, and an opportunity for people to raise specific issues.

I was pleased when we decided, quite early on, to suggest to the audience that we break up and ‘mingle’ rather than stick with the platform/audience set-up. It worked well and I managed to speak to plenty of people on a variety of issues: from housing to litter, from BAC to the Lavender Hill Festival. A couple of people even made suggestions on how the Listening to You sessions could be improved.

I think everyone, residents, councillors and officers left feeling positive about their interactions. And in the case of councillors and officers, with plenty of things to follow-up on.

But I can’t help reflecting that, with around 30 people attending, it represented 0.00% (rounded to 2 decimal places) of the ward population of 12,962 (the latest Office of National Statistics estimate)!

You could argue that it shows everyone is happy with the council, so felt no need to come along. Or that it was raining, which put people off. And there will be some truth in both. But I still can’t help feeling we are missing some tricks in the way we engage (or don’t engage) with residents and that leaves the council poorer: because if last night was a positive experience with around 0.0025% of the population, imagine what could come from 99.9975% of the population.

I also know I need to improve personally, someone last night commented on my absence from Streetlife, and while I’m on Twitter and have this blog the former is mainly personal and the latter isn’t what it once was.

What should I and the council do to better engage with residents? Or are you happy not talking to us?

Article

|

twitter logoI’m a social media sceptic. I’ve come to terms with that. You might not believe me when I say it, but I am. It’s fun and enjoyable. It is definitely part of the internet landscape that is here to stay. But does everyone and everything have to be on it? No, they don’t. So, while I’d be suspicious of a “social media agency” who weren’t active on Twitter (and I do know one in London) I’d have no problem with a council who feel their money and resources are best spent on other things. Horses for courses.

Part of my scepticism is driven by the number of people making money by selling social media to organisations who aren’t really buying it. There’s nothing worse than people and organisations who have clearly paid for the social media makeover, and have nice Twitter, facebook, flickr and YouTube logos on their website, but don’t really know what to do with them. Just because you’ve read about Twitter in the news, it doesn’t mean you need to be on it.

But, ironically, despite my scepticism there’s one thing I dislike even more than the quacks selling social media snake oil – it’s social media sceptics!

There have been a couple of good examples recently.

The first is from a little over a week ago when the BBC revealed a Scottish council was to probe a teachers Twitterings. But when you read the story you realise the council and school had an issue over her use of Twitter, not what she was saying. The council, we are told, “has a policy of blocking the use of social networking sites in all schools.” Later we are told that teachers “may access professional blogs which have educational value but are not allowed to have their own blog.”

In effect, the council’s policy is to say that their teachers can say and think what they like, as long as they don’t do it on the internet. If the teacher had been sending the same thoughts via text to friends she would have been fine. Typing out the highlights of her day and emailing them absolutely no problem. Publish them on Twitter or a blog, that’s a real no-no.

You can see why they felt the policy was necessary. They don’t want schools brought into disrepute or pupil’s confidential information published. But to impose blanket bans isn’t the way to go about it. These are management issues and should be dealt with in that way.

But the real gem comes from the local Guardian paper, suggesting Croydon had committed a £237k Twitter gaffe. The actual story is that a member of staff had used the account to send an inappropriate message. Not really that big a story. Would a similar headline have been prompted if you replaced the word ‘Twitter’ with ‘phone’, ’email’ or ‘potato print’?

Probably not, but because it’s Twitter we have the classic reaction of the sceptic. “It’s new, I think it’s a fad, I don’t really understand the hype. I MUST CRITICISE.”

Quote of the story must go to the opposition leader: “How anyone could ever suggest that a public body could control a Twitter account is beyond me.” Exactly. Town Halls already have their hands full trying to control the phones, all those magic strings with little pixies carrying your whispers.

What people don’t understand is that criticising the medium rarely makes sense. With the teacher there may be a problem about her being indiscreet about her charges, or surfing the web rather than teaching. And in Croydon you might wonder why a council officer is using council channels to make a political point. But suggesting Twitter is somehow responsible is like suggesting glass bottles are responsible for alcoholism.

Perhaps this is why I find myself disliking both the sceptic and the evangelist – because they concentrate on the medium rather than the messages. None of these sites are magic. None do anything other than create a way you can have conversations and keep up with people. They reflect human nature and you don’t actually need anyone to tell you how you should, and shouldn’t, be doing that.

And after all that, if you want to follow me on Twitter just pop along to http://twitter.com/jamescousins.