RE: Social Networking
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!