To consider the above report

Members considered meeting arrangements for the remainder of the municipal year.

Councillor Rayner explained that since March 2020 the council had needed to change the way it held meetings, due to the global pandemic. Moving to virtual meetings had allowed decisions to continue to be taken but had also kept residents safe and protected the borough. Technology had become a central tool to which all had adapted. Live streaming of council meetings had improved accessibility. Due to the recent expiration of the legislation allowing virtual decision-making meetings, there had been a return to some in-person meetings. It was now time to reflect on the benefits of virtual meetings and the opportunities for more transparency. Virtual meetings had increased engagement and had been welcomed by many participants. Travel requirements had reduced making it easier for all to conduct council business. Virtual meetings also allowed flexibility for those with caring responsibilities, a disability, or other commitments. The review took into account these benefits but also acknowledged the positives of in-person meetings to enable the council to serve residents. The report highlighted the importance of enabling hybrid meetings to take place and technology to ensure this approach could continue was being investigated.

Councillor Werner commented that all would agree they had come to see the benefits of virtual meetings. The council had been able to continue to make decisions and the public had seen more clearly how this was done. Virtual meetings also had important benefits in the fight against climate change and the current fuel supply issues. Virtual meetings were the family friendly option to enable individuals from all backgrounds to be councillors. The problem was that the government had failed to recognise the reality and had stopped decision making meetings taking place virtually. He asked the council to continue to lobby the government on this issue and he asked the Leader to write to confirm the council’s support. 

Councillor Werner commented that the hybrid option was the best way forward, He felt that officers had worked hard to get to this point but had not been given the tools needed. He referenced a Council motion in 2019 on the subject. Councillor Werner stated that he would like to see a clear timetable for improving the AV equipment; he felt Christmas would be a reasonable deadline.

Councillor Hilton held the view that had been proven that decision making meetings were best held face to face. He had attended three meetings in council premises: they had been easier to Chair, generated better responses and provided a better environment for debate. He set aside any personal inconveniences as being inconsequential. However he agreed that it was appropriate for some meetings to continue to be held virtually. He had no comments on the AV arrangements as he felt they worked well for him.

Councillor Knowles stated that he supported the paper. The working environment had advanced 20 years in a short period of time, however he now found online meetings tortuous after attending so many in the last 18 months. Councillor Knowles commented that since he had been elected he had experienced issues with the acoustics at council meetings. He had spoken to officers who had tried various solutions but not resolved the issues. In comparison, fully virtual meetings had perfect audio quality and the ability to connect hearing aids via Bluetooth. The current system was far better than Periscope but was a step back in terms of audio quality. The issue of hybrid meetings still needed to be addressed.

Councillor Bond commented that he had attended council meetings before he had been elected and found that members of the public sitting under the overhang in the council chamber found it difficult to hear the Members speaking. He recommended all participants in a public meeting should be conscious of this fact and speak as though they were in a public meeting.

Councillor Davey commented that online meetings worked very well for increasing transparency and the engagement of residents. They were more inclusive and better for officer time as well. However the current audio quality was abysmal. Viewing figures had dropped by 50% since the return to in-person meetings. For full Council the reduction was 75%.

Councillor Davey questioned the need to attend meetings in person if reports were simply going to be ‘nodded through’. In this case he felt he would be a better option for him to join virtually so that residents could hear him properly, as his vote was meaningless anyway. If the issue was meatier then he understood the need to be in the room to debate and stand his ground. He felt it should be a councillor’s individual decision to attend in person or not.

Councillor Price commented that she felt proposing some non-decision-making meetings that could continue to be held virtually should now be face-to-face went against what the council was trying to achieve in relation to climate change.  She was also concerned at the short notice for meetings in the following week that would have a change of venue.

Councillor Hill commented that Zoom meetings had worked well but the in-person broadcast did not. Most councillors had laptops or other devices in front of them and therefore he suggested a trial of an in-person meeting using individual devices to join a Zoom meeting. However, he was unsure whether there would be sufficient bandwidth.

Councillor Taylor commented at a previous meeting a central camera that spun round had been used and she suggested this may be a better option than a single fixed camera.

Councillor Baldwin expressed concern about the security of meetings such as the Corporate Parenting Forum being held in a virtual capacity.

Councillor Johnson commented that overall the shift to virtual meetings had been a great success in terms of increasing transparency and resident engagement.  However it was also important to reflect what it had not provided, which was the human factor. Many people were tired of online meetings and it was genuinely nice to engage with others face to face. He was not suggesting that there should be a return to all meetings being face to face but as many people returned to work and communities started to return to some sense of normality it was only right that some meetings should go back to face to face. He did not feel it was too onerous to expect an overview and scrutiny panel to meet four times a year in person. Virtual meetings did add value to the Town Forums, officer briefings, task and finish groups and other events.

Councillor Johnson highlighted that the council was one of the first to show leadership by contacting the Secretary of State to press for the retention of the ability to hold hybrid meetings. His administration had proposed a motion to invest in the AV facilities to improve resident engagement, however this had been overtaken by a global pandemic which required officers to focus on frontline priorities. Only now were the pieces being picked up and therefore a slight delay could be forgiven in terms of the council’s hierarchy of priorities.

Councillor Rayner commented on the important conversations that took place in exchanges before and after meetings that were only possible when an in-person meeting was held.  Officers were investigating options to improve the AV equipment, but implementation timescales would depend on the results of the investigation. Councillor Rayner clarified that all Part II confidential meetings were held via Teams, which had better security than Zoom.

It was proposed by Councillor Rayner, seconded by Councillor Johnson, and:

RESOLVED: That full Council notes the report and: 

i)                   Agrees the split of virtual meetings/in-person meetings for the remainder of the municipal year as detailed in Appendix A. 

ii)            Notes that a further review would take place if and when legislation is enacted to allow decision making meetings to take place virtually. 

The vote was taken by a show of hands. 31 Councillors voted for the motion; 2 Councillors voted against the motion. 1 Councillor abstained.