Lewisham Comms

[Tim Lund]

Lewisham Comms recently posted in this Forum to alert us to a decision to postpone consideration of a planning application, even though everyone directly involved - including me as one of the formal objectors - will have received both letters and emails on the subject. Meanwhile, there will be numerous local government officers, with messages to get across to citizens whose attention they may not already have got, who do not seem to be able to use Forums such as this to do what public servants should be doing - serving the public. It seems that Lewisham has a policy which restricts posting on Forums such as this to a tightly controlled channel - e.g. 'Lewisham Comms' - and so impedes useful communication. As an example of a message not getting out properly, I have in mind the Perry Vale Energy Savers launch this evening in Kilmorie School

A more sensible policy would be to allow any officer who is competent enough to speak about something at a public meeting to write about it in a public Forum such as this, and to refocus the work of communication professionals on giving such officers the support and training they need. As such, the comms department would be acting much as the legal department - not facing the public directly, but providing essential internal advice.

When if comes to notifications about changes to committee agendas, it would make more sense to develop an RSS feed which ICT professionals outside the council could tailor to provide the service the public actually wants.

[Tim Lund]

Here's another fairly random bit of good news a Lewisham officer could have put out, which would have helped let us as citizens appreciate that the Council does basically work for us, but because of deliberate bandwidth constriction we don't normally get to hear about.

It goes back to an email I sent - to Lewisham Cyclists, in fact - over a year ago about a badly postioned stop line, traffic light positioning and phasing where the cycle route I use going to Canary Wharf crossed the A2 in Deptford. Any cyclist who followed the Highway Code as things were set up was putting their lives at risk. I wasn't the only one raising the matter, and Lewisham's Cycle Implementation Manager was on the case, taking the matter up with TfL. Well, in the last month or so it has been sorted out - and I hope no-one has died or been seriously injured in the meantime. So thank you - and let's hear more about the good work our Council does, from the officers who actually do it.

[stuart]

Do you mean the one who has been made redundant?

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

Gee thanks Stuart - so at least one other person is interested in this sort of stuff. I still didn't understand your comment - are you suggesting it's the good council officers who are getting made redundant? It's an interesting question, but I don't know any reason to think so. If there were lots of other jobs out there, you might expect more good officers to leave to take up such opportunities, but I don't think this very likely.

To return to the OP - it occurs to me that freeing up front-line officers to explain to the public what they are doing will also help to motivate staff - people like to be recognised. Having to explain to someone else what you are doing is sometimes also a good way of making sure that you understand yourself what you are doing, and why.

Another opportunity, I think, to link to my favourite Lewisham officer YouTube video, very ably explaining why Forums such as this should be more widely used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 3hJsJjoR5g

Here's another video with Lewisham's CEO communicating, arguing I think, for more diversity

http://vimeo.com/25609379

[Robin Orton]

Tim, I don't believe it is realistic to expect any large organisation, particularly one that is publicly funded and politically accountable, to allow its front line staff to communicate directly and 'on the record' to the media (including forums like this). Effectively managing communications with the media is an incredibly difficult job, and requires highly developed professional skills. Leaving it to operational staff, even if they have been given some media training, is a recipe for disaster.

I speak from experience, having spent most of my career in a Government department dealing with policy issues, many of which were of significant interest to the media. Even people in quite senior positions were not allowed to talk directly to the media (which is not to say that it didn't happen sometimes) or, if, exceptionally, they were, only with the hands-on support of a press officer.

[Tim Lund]

Thanks Robin. You raise quite a few questions, and in a short post here, I'm not going to be able to cover them. But let's say here briefly:

The internet - and in particular Forums such as this - mean that there are now 'citizen journalists', and organisations, large or small, need to adapt to this.

None of the cases I mention in this thread are about policy, where I admit talking to the media - including could be 'citizen journalists' - would need to be handled with care. But I framed my proposal with this in mind, because something said by a responsible officer at a public meeting surely needs the same degree of care. If someone were to ask a question about policy, then the response would be either to refer the questioned to published positions - where a web link put on a Forum such as this would be great - or just say that policy is under discussion or review, and so cannot be gone into. If the question is about what the Council is doing for the public, or a service it is offering, there is surely an officer somewhere competent to just say what.

[Robin Orton]

I wiil only say that the distinction between the Council's 'policy' and 'what it is doing for the public' is often, I suspect, not at all clear-cut. And even if one is talking about a well-established council service, it is unlikely that the person actually delivering or even managing it will have the skills to explain it clearly, unambiguously and succinctly without any input from an information professional. (Indeed, when I look at some of the information available on the Council's website about new services - the new library computer system is an example I recently came across - I sometimes think it would have benefitted from having had more, not less, professional input on how best to explain it to users.)

[Tim Lund]

I wiil only say that the distinction between the Council's 'policy' and 'what it is doing for the public' is often, I suspect, not at all clear-cut.

Often, maybe, but far from always, and I suspect not generally either. Let's take another actual example, posted in SE23.com

Subject: More trees please

Thank you for your email concerning the lack of new tree planting within the borough.

Last year the council planted a total of 425 new street trees in the borough (please see table below for breakdown of species )

This years planting programme will see a further 50 + new street trees planted.

I hope this information demonstrates to you the councils commitment to improving the quality of the local environment.

Follow this link to see table referred to.

I'd say this is the sort of thing Council officers should be able to go ahead and publish wherever. However, it's a personal email being quoted, albeit clearly on Council business, and within the competence of the officer. That would have made me think before posting, but I also would have been prepared to post. Reading this also makes me think that a strict distinction between policy and non-policy is not so important either, since it's about both - it says what the Council's policy is, and what it has done.

And even if one is talking about a well-established council service, it is unlikely that the person actually delivering or even managing it will have the skills to explain it clearly, unambiguously and succinctly without any input from an information professional. (Indeed, when I look at some of the information available on the Council's website about new services - the new library computer system is an example I recently came across - I sometimes think it would have benefitted from having had more, not less, professional input on how best to explain it to users.)

Is it really that unlikely? I'd have thought this is the sort of communications skill experienced, repsonsible front-line and policy officers will have developed - illustrated by the perfectly clear communication quoted above. Regarding the role of information professional, we're actually agreeing here, Robin. In the OP I wrote

refocus the work of communication professionals on giving such officers the support and training they need

[Robin Orton]

I would have no qualms about quoting on this forum from a letter or email of this sort sent to me by an officer of a council or other public body - indeed, I have done so. Such emails and letters will always (if my Civil Service experience is any guide) be based more or less verbatim on a stock draft which will have been approved by a senior officer. If the letter or email to which the more junior officer is down to reply raises issues not covered by the stock draft, he or she will seek advice from a more senior officer or perhaps from another department. If it is clear however that the query is from someone in the media (or someone who is clearly going to use it for media purposes), the officer will be expected to get advice from his or her press office (or whatever they're called nowadays).

[Tim Lund]

I would have no qualms about quoting on this forum from a letter or email of this sort sent to me by an officer of a council or other public body - indeed, I have done so. Such emails and letters will always (if my Civil Service experience is any guide) be based more or less verbatim on a stock draft which will have been approved by a senior officer. If the letter or email to which the more junior officer is down to reply raises issues not covered by the stock draft, he or she will seek advice from a more senior officer or perhaps from another department.

If we allow this, then I think we can agree that such communications could appear on Forums such as this directly from officers.

If it is clear however that the query is from someone in the media (or someone who is clearly going to use it for media purposes), the officer will be expected to get advice from his or her press office (or whatever they're called nowadays).

I'm not sure why officers should say anything different to the media than they'd say to ordinary citizens - and I'm not sure, in a world of 'citizen journalists' that they will be able to tell the difference. Councils - and other large organisations - will just have to adapt - and I'd suggest they do so by adjusting the advice / training their comms professionals give to responsible front line staff.

[Robin Orton]

OK, Tim, whatever.

[Tim Lund]

My thanks to rshdunlop on the SydSoc thread for pointing out how Council officers use EDF. Just to reinforce the point, I just saw this there -

A message to the morons..............
Posted by peckham parkie Today, 12:57AM

............who have been heaping abuse and ridicule on the lady in a wheelchair walking her dog in and around Peckham Rye Park.
It's an electric wheelchair you fools. The dog isn't towing her! Did you REALLY think it was?
This lady has stopped coming to the park at certain times of the day because of face to face abuse, snide comments, dirty looks and mockery.
If you have any decency, and are also capable of coherent speech, please tell her you are sorry when you see her next.

If I hear of this happening again, or witness such harassment, I will involve the police.

Mark Newell
Park Liaison Officer
Peckham Rye Park
07940 743929
mark.newell@southwark.gov.uk

On this evidence, Southwark Council parkies have rather better communications skills than Lewisham's specialists.

[Tim Lund]

On the "Knife Crime in Sydenham" thread

I was just looking at the MPA performance report - http://www.mpa.gov.uk/committees/sop/2011/1013/07/ dated 13 October and year to date info is:
The Knife Crime category has shown an increase of 15.7% (892 offences, from 5,690 to 6,582). The SD rate is 22.4%. It is mainly comprised of robbery offences (65%) and assaults (31%). Threats using a knife and intimated knife offences are up 22% and 35% respectively, while knife crimes where a knife is used to injure are down 3%.

Serious Youth Violence (SYV) has increased by 11.2% (from 3,053 to 3,394 offences, +341). SYV is mainly comprised of robbery (64%) and GBH (26%). The robbery element is rising and the GBH falling. There have been seven youth homicides FY to 14th August 11 compared with ten in the same period last FY.

So yes there is an increase in knife crime in London and what I think we need are more police to work on the strategic outcome as stated "Reduce crime and catch criminals; be intolerant of violence" - basically the message to Boris is cut crime not police.

Meanwhile residents need to be out and about on our streets, walk purposefully and generally be aware of the environment.

which illustrates some of the things that are wrong about how Lewisham does its communications - certainly using this Forum.

It's maybe unreasonable to expect a local pol not to use any issue to score partly political points, but it's still worth noting that Chris wants us to raise our consciousness of knife crime, even as she asks us not to be frightened. It's less unreasonable to ask why she dominates the messages on this Forum from what has been called our local officialdom. If this Forum is a useful communications channel - which I very much believe, and which Chris' use of it corroborates - then why aren't other representatives of officialdom using it - as the East Dulwich Forum is used in LB Southwark?

I know MaryMck thought I was silly for suggesting that some SydSoc members discourage the use of this Forum - but I think the evidence is strong - not least because they tried to discourage me. So I wonder if there is also a similar policy - maybe not minuted anywhere - coming from LB Lewisham, with a special case made for Chris, presumably as someone who does understand how to use it.

Whatever the reasons, the effect is that communications from LB Lewisham are limited, and what we do learn is likely to come with some political spin, as in this case, so devaluing it for most people. OK - it's not exciting, but today I noticed that some work is being done on Kent House Road - in Sydenham Ward - to make it safer and easier for pedestrians to cross



I feel sure there are many more such things happening which we don't get to hear about because of some misguided attempt to control the media.

To return to the impact of Boris on policing - I wonder how much politicians do affect this, at least in the short run. In the long run perhaps - which prompts me to pull out another detail in that report Chris linked to

KPI 6 – Local Police Doing a Good Job.

... At borough level ‘confidence’ ranges from 49% (Lewisham and Greenwich) to 82% (Sutton).

Can Chris or anyone else in officaldom explain why confidence in the police is lower here than in any other London borough? Does it have anything to do with our local pols?

[simon]

Does anybody know if this thing above going to be a crossing? Will it be a zebra, will it have lights? Or is just a method of slowing traffic and making it easier to cross, which it has already achevied? Cross that road twice a day with my dogs and it gets a bit hairy sometimes.

[Dorian]

Cross that road twice a day with my dogs and it gets a bit hairy sometimes.

The Dogs or crossing ?

( Sorry )...................

[Chris Best]

This is a pedestrian refuge to assist the older residents living in Albermarle Lodge cross the road to the nearby bus stops. The proposed position of the traffic island is between Bryden Close and Albermarle Lodge.

Existing double yellow lines will be extended southwards so as to keep the area adjacent to the traffic island clear of parked vehicles.

[Tim Lund]

This is a pedestrian refuge to assist the older residents living in Albermarle Lodge cross the road to the nearby bus stops. The proposed position of the traffic island is between Bryden Close and Albermarle Lodge.

Existing double yellow lines will be extended southwards so as to keep the area adjacent to the traffic island clear of parked vehicles.

Thanks for that Chris.

The question remains why others aren't able to use this Forum to explain the various public services which LB Lewisham delivers.

[Tim Lund]

It would be hard to make it up.

We're asking businesses to offer a special discount for people who subscribe to the Lewisham Life e-newsletter. All the offers will be listed on a secret (my italics) page on our website that only members can access, and every future edition of our enewsletter will advertise the discounts scheme.

...

Businesses that join the scheme will benefit from ongoing exposure to Lewisham Life readers and the chance to attract new customers through a special offer.

How could anyone ever imagine that promoting special offers somewhere secret could be an attractive idea? I rang the number in the newsletter to find out more and was answered by someone from Lewisham Communications. A clear case of a communication channel which should be used to support business being used instead to promote itself as a communications channel - where, of course, the main message will be what a good job Lewisham is doing!

[Eagle]

How much does Lewisham Life Cost ?

How many pictures of The Mayor and other politburo members are in every publication ?