[David Collins]

yeh....go on then.

[Gemma Waugh]

I think it would probably be easier to gleen scrutiny from other facebook pages than to set up a scrutiny page. i.e. if I'm a local resident and theres a council or service page I might "have a moan" (scrutiny-?) on it, but I don't know if I'd stumble across a specific "scrutiny" page and focus entirely on that. The "overhearing" of residents on other pages is perhaps more useful than asking them to say something specific on a specific place. And, of course, I may be less willing to say anything given that my friends (of the 18-28 age range) could see what I've been doing (it's not 'cool' to be involved in democracy). Some challenges that need to be tackled?

Difficult one. Facebook is outside of work for me.... it's not that my personal profile is too risky for work stuff (hell, the odffice hear all about my escapades anyway), but I just don't want work stuff invading personal. And I can't be bothered with two log-ins. I imagine I'm not the only one who'd think that - so maybe not a case of would the public use it, but would the staff man it?

[Mitch Tipper]

I think your slightly missing the point im trying to make Gemma, I agree with you point that this would not be a sensible approach as local residents will not want to comment on local issues on a very broad page. The point I was trying to make is that if a Group, not a seperate account, was established for Scrutiny Officers we could vent our thoughts and feelings about things that are currently going on in the world of Scrutiny.

I was also trying find out peoples feelings about setting up a seperate account for your councils Scrutiny fucnction and inviting local people to give their thoughts on current reviews. Although you state that Democracy isn't 'cool' ,if a topic that was controversial arouse I would bet that the 18- 25 yr olds would soon have there say.

Its just an idea, can see where your coming from, so can I take that as a no!?

Mitch

[tim gilling]

Aren't the discussion pages on the CfPS website the 'scrutiny facebook'? Or perhaps you want to winge about us on another network...

[Gemma Waugh]

I think my point for the scrutiny for residents facebook page is that for my age group at least, you would be up against the barrier of facebook requiring a real name and being fully identifiable, rather than say here or others forums where you could be slightly more anonymous and therefore say what you feel. This wouldn't necessarily be a barrier for all people, but just thought worth raising.

This could maybe be demonstrated by the following; we are in the consultation phase for an Academy. So not scrutiny exactly, but seeking opinions for residents which is what the scrutiny page would be looking to acheive? As sponsors of the Academy we have to go through the official routes of consultation which don't include facebook. However, one of the schools involved has put up a website with discussion forum that is very voiciferous to say the least. There are also two pages that members of the public have set up on facebook - a for and an against. The against has far more on it, as you would expect, but the responses are less than the discussion forum that allows anonymity. The facebook seems to be students to be making short statements (merging of church school and non-church school and responses tend to be "I don't want to be made to go to church on sundays") whereas the discussion forum seems to be residents/parents/governors actually engaging in a debate (argument or slanging match - but still, a two way conversation). I mean I don't know how relevent these two examples would be because they are both set up by residents rather than the council, but worth throwing in?

As for the scrutiny officer facebook side. Ditto Tim. I can access this forum during work hours on the work computers. Facebook is barred at work, and I don't see what facebook would offer that this doesn't (apart from photos - but how many people have photos of scrutiny taking place?).

Don't let me get in the way of anything though! Only my humble opinion!

[Peter Marrington]

Mitch, Isn't this what the CfPS Forum is about or are you thinking of something different?

[Mitch Tipper]

The main point that I have been trying to make is that social networking sites are a great way to connect with the local community. In times when our respective Council's are making cutting budget's left right and centre social networking is surely a brilliant way to promote good Scrutiny for free.

For example, a Scrutiny review that we are currently undertaking is looking at how we can improve the vitality of our Districts markets. Some traders work a 6 day week and have good ideas about how they think the markets could be improved but would never have the opportunity to put their feelings across, a good majority of the traders have facebook pages to promote the goods they are selling so surely it would make sense to let them have there say on a ' East Lindsey District Council Scrutiny Facebook' page. This might just be a special circumstance but I am sure that it many cases this could work.

I understand that, like everything, it will come with impracticalities but surely this can be harnessed as a useful tool to engage with our communities.

I think its a shame that some Councils may overlook this and dismiss this as a nonsense idea.

Mitch

[Gemma Waugh]

I think you would have more luck with a targetted specific item of scrutiny like your markets example than you would with just 'general scrutiny'. And yes, using free facilities to do that would be brilliant. Don't get me wrong. Again, it's the question of anonymity available - may be fine for some, may make others hold back.

[Ed Hammond]

As I see it there are three issues:

1) The potential for launching a "national" Facebook group for local government scrutiny in its broadest sense, and taking advantage of other social networking tools to do similar.

2) Individual councils using social networking media to promote scrutiny to local people.

3) Scrutiny committees / groups using social media to gather evidence and promote and enhance the evidence-gathering process for a given scrutiny review.

I think that there is a clear and compelling case for 3), a pretty good case for 2) under certain circumstances, but less of a case for 1), for reasons which others have gone into above.

There's also a case for scrutiny feeding into existing online social networks. Some residents associations have blogs - other local pressure groups also have an online presence. Members and officers can contribute to debates happening on these sites. This could be more immediately useful as they don't involve scrutiny itself setting up a group or blog which is, essentially, artificial, and which some people may not wish to get involved with because it's the council setting the terms of engagement.

Councils have to be careful about their use of online social networks for staff and the public. Facebook can be quite dicey when used in a "professional" context. In order for it to be useful, and a living resource, people have to know what it's actually "for".

[David Collins]

I tend to agree with Ed's "1, 2, 3" appraisal. FB would be good to attract views from certain groups of service users for specific reviews. My son lives on FB...but he is 16. My mother would never have heard of it. She is 76!