<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Consultation Institute Wrong On e-Participation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.delib.net/dblog/consultation-institute-wrong-on-e-participation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/consultation-institute-wrong-on-e-participation/</link>
	<description>Digital democracy, news, thinking, tips &#38; tricks and tech stuff from Delib</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:59:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Julia</title>
		<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/consultation-institute-wrong-on-e-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-1609</link>
		<dc:creator>Julia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:31:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/?p=655#comment-1609</guid>
		<description>A recent experience that my neighbours and I have had with Brent Council echoes Gez&#039;s warnings about that new &#039;Duties to Involve&#039; risk increasingy disillusionment with politics if done wrongly or insincerely.  

In this instance, Brent Council faced losing tens of millions of pounds for new social housing if planning permission were not granted for a new building in January.  In a tight economic climate, it is understandable that the Council made a foregone decision to grant the permission.  What is neither understandable nor acceptable is that the Council pretended that an incomprehensible mailing to residents upheld its own &#039;Duty to Involve&#039; policy, and that the planning meeting itself was an open and unbiased event.  

Believing Committee members were genuinely open to facts my neighbours spent countless hours drafting model mock-ups of the proposed building, trawling through highly technical documents and crafting extensivly detailed arguments regarding the inadequacy of the proposal, only to find Committee members more interested in whether the windows of one house in one neighbourhood violated conservation codes than the overall impact of 150 unit dwelling.  That legally mandated information was not available until just days before the meeting or that an arcane and inaccessible website kept crashing so much so that residents had to stay up until after midnight simply to down load key documents is another matter......

Having attended the Planning Meeting myself, I saw first hand the disillusionment that a &#039;faux&#039; consultation exercise can have on citizens.  Having dutifully trudged along to a so-called &#039;site visit&#039; in the freezing cold - only to be presented with arcane architectural plans on a sub-zero street corner, my neighbours did not even realise that current technology would have made it relatively easy for the Council to post virtual mock-ups of the proposed building with easy to understand depictions of its noise and light impact on the neighbourhood on their website.  While they may not be blaming the Council for a sub-standard use of ICT, they are certainly all disgusted by a sham &#039;Duty to Consult&#039; that wasted their time, and made a mockery of the Council&#039;s own policy.

This same Council is now hosting a community seminar next week on &#039;Community Involvement.&#039;  My neighbour passed what he referred to as &#039;this joke&#039; along to me because he knew I would be interested in the subject.  I am.  But the &#039;open&#039; seminar is a being held in community centre between 12-4 on a weekday.  I would ask the Consultation Institute how &#039;open&#039; - let alone representative - an event which excludes most of the working population really is?  Surely, a Council that genuinely wants to hear from all its citizens would make some sort of attempt to leverage the Internet?  Unless, of course, it is really not interested at all?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A recent experience that my neighbours and I have had with Brent Council echoes Gez&#8217;s warnings about that new &#8216;Duties to Involve&#8217; risk increasingy disillusionment with politics if done wrongly or insincerely.  </p>
<p>In this instance, Brent Council faced losing tens of millions of pounds for new social housing if planning permission were not granted for a new building in January.  In a tight economic climate, it is understandable that the Council made a foregone decision to grant the permission.  What is neither understandable nor acceptable is that the Council pretended that an incomprehensible mailing to residents upheld its own &#8216;Duty to Involve&#8217; policy, and that the planning meeting itself was an open and unbiased event.  </p>
<p>Believing Committee members were genuinely open to facts my neighbours spent countless hours drafting model mock-ups of the proposed building, trawling through highly technical documents and crafting extensivly detailed arguments regarding the inadequacy of the proposal, only to find Committee members more interested in whether the windows of one house in one neighbourhood violated conservation codes than the overall impact of 150 unit dwelling.  That legally mandated information was not available until just days before the meeting or that an arcane and inaccessible website kept crashing so much so that residents had to stay up until after midnight simply to down load key documents is another matter&#8230;&#8230;</p>
<p>Having attended the Planning Meeting myself, I saw first hand the disillusionment that a &#8216;faux&#8217; consultation exercise can have on citizens.  Having dutifully trudged along to a so-called &#8216;site visit&#8217; in the freezing cold &#8211; only to be presented with arcane architectural plans on a sub-zero street corner, my neighbours did not even realise that current technology would have made it relatively easy for the Council to post virtual mock-ups of the proposed building with easy to understand depictions of its noise and light impact on the neighbourhood on their website.  While they may not be blaming the Council for a sub-standard use of ICT, they are certainly all disgusted by a sham &#8216;Duty to Consult&#8217; that wasted their time, and made a mockery of the Council&#8217;s own policy.</p>
<p>This same Council is now hosting a community seminar next week on &#8216;Community Involvement.&#8217;  My neighbour passed what he referred to as &#8216;this joke&#8217; along to me because he knew I would be interested in the subject.  I am.  But the &#8216;open&#8217; seminar is a being held in community centre between 12-4 on a weekday.  I would ask the Consultation Institute how &#8216;open&#8217; &#8211; let alone representative &#8211; an event which excludes most of the working population really is?  Surely, a Council that genuinely wants to hear from all its citizens would make some sort of attempt to leverage the Internet?  Unless, of course, it is really not interested at all?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kim</title>
		<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/consultation-institute-wrong-on-e-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-1602</link>
		<dc:creator>Kim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:35:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/?p=655#comment-1602</guid>
		<description>I agree - by offering online surveys we have changged the age profile from predominantly male over 60 to a more representative balance of ages. However it should be one tool in teh box not the only tool.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree &#8211; by offering online surveys we have changged the age profile from predominantly male over 60 to a more representative balance of ages. However it should be one tool in teh box not the only tool.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jam</title>
		<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/consultation-institute-wrong-on-e-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-1530</link>
		<dc:creator>Jam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:44:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/?p=655#comment-1530</guid>
		<description>With the merging of web/mobile/TV technologies there is potential to attract the time poor; typically those in the 20 to 40 age ranges, or, say, rural people; who don&#039;t want to or can&#039;t drive miles to give their view (as most projects don&#039;t have resources to do that much outreach). The &#039;usual suspects&#039; is a throw away line, often used by those wanting to dismiss consultation findings. However, consultation often finds demographics skewed towards those over 60, sometimes to such an extent that weighting becomes meaningless. The new technologies can, and have been very useful in the field in approaching a broader audience. It should not be assumed either, that technology is just for young persons. 

There is evidently a switch with some audiences to prefer online to more traditional approaches, but as with anything it is taking care to match methods to audience, not just jump at the latest whizzy thing.

The main problem with the new act is that it is yet another in succession, so the temptation will be to wait to see what the next act says, as by time the practice from the last one would be in place it would have changed, and who knows what the election will bring. 

Quality, not quantity.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With the merging of web/mobile/TV technologies there is potential to attract the time poor; typically those in the 20 to 40 age ranges, or, say, rural people; who don&#8217;t want to or can&#8217;t drive miles to give their view (as most projects don&#8217;t have resources to do that much outreach). The &#8216;usual suspects&#8217; is a throw away line, often used by those wanting to dismiss consultation findings. However, consultation often finds demographics skewed towards those over 60, sometimes to such an extent that weighting becomes meaningless. The new technologies can, and have been very useful in the field in approaching a broader audience. It should not be assumed either, that technology is just for young persons. </p>
<p>There is evidently a switch with some audiences to prefer online to more traditional approaches, but as with anything it is taking care to match methods to audience, not just jump at the latest whizzy thing.</p>
<p>The main problem with the new act is that it is yet another in succession, so the temptation will be to wait to see what the next act says, as by time the practice from the last one would be in place it would have changed, and who knows what the election will bring. </p>
<p>Quality, not quantity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention Consultation Institute Wrong On e-Participation &#124; Delib Blog -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/consultation-institute-wrong-on-e-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-1525</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention Consultation Institute Wrong On e-Participation &#124; Delib Blog -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 16:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/?p=655#comment-1525</guid>
		<description>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ella Taylor-Smith and The Delib Team, The Delib Team. The Delib Team said: blogged about e-participation and the new &#039;local democracy, etc&#039; act - http://bit.ly/bXAjwb [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Ella Taylor-Smith and The Delib Team, The Delib Team. The Delib Team said: blogged about e-participation and the new &#39;local democracy, etc&#39; act &#8211; <a href="http://bit.ly/bXAjwb" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/bXAjwb</a> [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gez Smith</title>
		<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/consultation-institute-wrong-on-e-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-1518</link>
		<dc:creator>Gez Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:19:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/?p=655#comment-1518</guid>
		<description>Yeah, heard that yesterday oddly enough. It&#039;s impressive when it&#039;s said alongside other fallacies such as &#039;you can&#039;t tell who&#039;s responding online&#039; and &#039;no-one uses the internet&#039;, despite the mutual exclusivities between the different thoughts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, heard that yesterday oddly enough. It&#8217;s impressive when it&#8217;s said alongside other fallacies such as &#8216;you can&#8217;t tell who&#8217;s responding online&#8217; and &#8216;no-one uses the internet&#8217;, despite the mutual exclusivities between the different thoughts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ella</title>
		<link>http://www.delib.net/dblog/consultation-institute-wrong-on-e-participation/comment-page-1/#comment-1517</link>
		<dc:creator>Ella</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 13:57:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.delib.co.uk/dblog/?p=655#comment-1517</guid>
		<description>A citizen who participates in online democracy is promptly labelled a &quot;usual suspect&quot; and the value of their opinion demoted accordingly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A citizen who participates in online democracy is promptly labelled a &#8220;usual suspect&#8221; and the value of their opinion demoted accordingly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

