Broadcasting Hampshire County Council meetings are a ‘waste of money’
SUPPORTIVE Councillor Ken Thornber
PLANS to broadcast council meetings live on the internet have been branded a waste of money.
Hampshire County Council is spending £205,000 on setting up the new system for its council chamber in Winchester, and it is expected to be used for the first time during today’s budget meeting.
The council leader has defended the scheme, saying that it will provide greater transparency to the public, and the old audio system needed updating.
But Lib Dem member for Portchester, Cllr Roger Price said: ‘With the cuts that have been going on across the county – reductions in services, library hours being cut, youth services and so on, is allocating nearly a quarter of a million to broadcasting the best way to spend it?
‘Even if there was plenty of money floating around it would be a luxury to do, but at the moment we are going through hard times and services for the community we serve are being cut.
‘This is a total waste of money.’
Tory council leader, Cllr Ken Thornber, said: ‘The county council has a strong track record around transparency, and in line with the aims of the government’s Localism Act, by opening up some of our public meetings to a wider audience in this way, we hope that this will empower local residents and communities.
‘By streaming important meetings online as they happen, and providing archived footage afterwards, this will give people a greater understanding of the difficult decisions that need to be made in the current economic climate, and how the council is representing the interests of the county’s 1.28m residents to protect front-line services.
The cost includes £95,000 to replace the old audio system, £60,000 for the new visual system and cameras, as well as £50,000 for installation in the council chamber and one other committee room.
Cllr Thornber added: ‘Members have contributed £90,000 as a result of their underspend in their members’ budgets in 2011/12.’
But Cllr Price said: ‘If there was a members’ budgets underspend, that money could have been better spent elsewhere, even on a one-off capital expense.’
The meeting starts today at 10am. Go to hants.gov.uk to watch online.
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Portsmouth
Friday 25 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 25 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 13 C to 23 C
Wind Speed: 24 mph
Wind direction: East
Comments
There are 11 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Yocal
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 04:53 PMI did watch an Australian state government session once (can't remember what state it was) on video via an online Australian public TV web site. It was quite shocking because of the language used and name calling. Funny to watch.
farehamscareham
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 02:19 PMMr Scareham.. Zzzzzz .... "have I missed much"?.... Mrs Scareham.. "No, it's just a repeat I think".....
Just Passing
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 01:56 PMIsn't there a risk people will think they are watching ' last of the summer wine'?
Stella Bell
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 01:28 PMI should have added on the bottom of my comment 6.......We are all doing our work to be part of the BIG SOCIETY
Fareham99
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 01:19 PMWhilst I agree with Cllr. Roger Price on the need to save money at the moment (and hence this is a matter of timing rather than the democratic principle of transparency) I also agree with Shaun Cunnigham in his observation @2 that "it never comes cheap and the fight to ensure democratic principles remain fit for purpose is always an on-going contest between those who seek to abuse such values and those who seek democratic accountability". Perhaps Fareham Borough Council would adopt a similar attitude to transparency and avoid public perception of ineptitude, inefficiency, cronyism, and party political gerrymandering. Recent decisions to allow a "new town" north of the M27 and the approval to build a new pubrestaurant in the conservation area and green gap between Portchester and Fareham Town at Cams Hall are examples.
Stella Bell
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 01:18 PMGreater transparency to the public at Hampshire County Council, Can we have some of that at Fareham Borough Council? Perhaps it would stop some of the appalling politics being played out just to get their bottoms on seats at election time. The SCENARIO is for Fareham Borough Council to have a consultation, ie parking charges in Portchester causing a huge amount of distress to shopkeepers, workers and residents and then BINGO the Conservatives will save the day by announcing they will fight against………. Of course all this was meant for the May elections but they have come unstuck. We now have the assurance from the Chairman of the Portchester Civic Society than there will be no parking charges in Portchester. Did Councillor Nick Walker (Portchester West Conservative) and his partner Councillor Sue Bell ( Portchester West Conservative ) both members of the Portchester Civic Society advise her on this? The fact that chairman of this society thinks it is a silly petition (6000+ signatures to be presented to the Mayor of Fareham) will clearly indicate we have now got them on the run. It will not be the Conservatives or the Liberals that saved the day but the PEOPLE OF PORTCHESTER.The fog is beginning to clear!
Yocal
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 11:45 AMI have to say that because it is the County Council, it is probably a good idea. I don't know anyone that has attended a county council meeting, because it is to far to travel. I do know quite a few people that have attended borough meetings. Also seeing councillors in action is revealing about their personal interests and prejudices, which can effect voting patterns. I also think that Flying Bull makes a valid point about the ability to vote (referendum style) at home.
Flying bull
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 09:43 AMThis is great news. We can all see how they waste our money. I wonder if this can be made interactive? So we can all vote from home?
monster munch
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 09:25 AMThe headline says it all....
Shaun Cunningham
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 09:20 AMOn balance this new transparency must be welcomed. Yes it comes with a price, democracy and democratic accountability is what we all demand is it not. Our fathers and mothers know from their experiences it never comes cheap and the fight to ensure democratic principles remain fit for purpose is always an on-going contest between those who seek to abuse such values and those who seek democratic accountability. Transparency and openness should be a process we all should demand in our governance; personally I am cheesed off when local politicians use the democratic progress in name only and then go on too trash the public sentiments. So well done and hope the camera remains firmly on even on those really difficult decisions.
sidious
Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 08:58 AMWhilst it seems a good idea, £90000 probably represents the cost of six low level admin staff. I agree that now is not the time to be spending money on fripperies.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.