Should Councils stream stuff?
I went to full Council last night in Solihull, mainly because we have started promoting meetings via our Twitter feed, and as this was something I have said they should be doing for some time now, I felt I should at least attend one to see what I wanted promoting.
There’s no reason why we can’t stream meetings, but for the costs involved, who would watch it, and what would they get out of it?
I was one of 8 or 9 people in the spectator’s gallery, most of those were students, so for the general public.
In a time when Councils are being told to cut costs, and in some cases services, where does the funding come from to do this, and how would it be justified? I am all for citizen engagement, democracy, and due process, but I am really struggling with justifying the expense of making things like this available online to the directors, and members of the Council.
Any ideas?
December 13th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I’d be intrigued to know how much it would cost to record meetings as mp3s and put them online as downloads as soon as possible (probably next morning). Live streaming I would imagine is more expensive, particularly video. You’d need two things for podcasts – members using mics (which I imagine there is in the civic chamber) and members saying their name when speaking. It wouldn’t be as good as video and live streaming but it would by far fill the gap. Meetings are never that great records of meetings.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I had said something similar on Cllr Hawkins blog last week. http://cllrkenhawkins.co.uk/2009/12/10/full-council-8-december-2009/
I think audio is the way to go, video is simply too expensive, and enough people are interested to justify the costs of that medium.