Agenda item

Report DLS58 by the Scrutiny Support Officer.

(Enclosure)

Following the first Citizen’s Jury, held by the Council on December 8^th 2005, the Scrutiny Support Officer had prepared a report evaluating the event. The officer commented that the event had been viewed as an overall success, although there was room for improvement. The jury did not feel that they had received enough information to form a verdict, although feedback on the event was useful. The report was considered by CMT on Wednesday January 11^th 2006, who supported the idea of having fewer topics to discuss. They also suggested that the topic could be specific to the jury, i.e. having a Stamford issue with a jury from Stamford, or a young person’s issue, with the jury comprising of young people. It had also been suggested by the Judge from the event, that a similar format could be followed on-line. The format could also be packaged and taken into schools, who would pick their own topic and organise the event.

Members discussed whether schools would have the capacity to take on an event such as this. Schools have some flexibility in teaching citizenship and it was suggested that they might welcome the approach.  The Training Manager stated that, depending on the desired age range and the time that was suggested, schools could be accommodating. It was suggested that the programme could be undertaken with one school and then, if successful, rolled out to other schools across the District. As this could be an important means of engaging young people with the political process, it was tasked to the Democratic Review Working Group to consider this further.

Members considered the number of items it would be appropriate to discuss at any future events held by the Council. Members felt that one or two issues would be most suitable. It was suggested that a jury day could be held at the end of a week of events on one activity, i.e. an anti-social behaviour jury following an anti-social behaviour awareness week. Following discussion on the time constraints of the last event, members felt that it would be appropriate, if another event were to be held in the daytime, it should be split into two sessions with one topic to be considered in each. Members also suggested that there could be an evening jury at which one item could be considered. Members thought that as the public become more aware of the events, they might be encouraged to attend.

During discussion, members considered the likes and dislikes of the day that had been identified by members of the jury. They had stated that they could not identify Councillors from members of the public. Councillors stated that they too, would have preferred to be able to identify the members of the jury and from whence they had come.

One Member commented that the feedback he had received on the day had been positive. Members considered the implications of calling the event a ‘jury’. It was suggested that the choice of word might suggest to participants that any decisions or recommendations they made would be binding. It was commented that instead the event was more a forum for feedback. After discussion, members of the DSP felt that it would be more appropriate to change the name of the event to ‘Citizens’ Panel’. Operating as a Panel, there would be greater opportunity for members of the public involved to ask more detailed questions. It was suggested that members of the public be asked for subjects that would interest them, to allow them to be considered at any future events.

Conclusions:

1. That the Democratic Review Working Group should consider the format and audience of any future Citizens’ Jury/Panel events.
2. To recommend to the Access and Engagement Portfolio Holder that for an all day event, there should be two sessions of one topic each, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. If an evening event were to be held, one topic should be considered.
3. To recommend to the Access and Engagement Portfolio Holder that the name should be altered to ‘Citizens’ Panel’.