What tools are fit for official "virtual events"?

Reflections on experience in trying to use commercial offerings for niche uses

My prior career was as a telecoms and technology consultant, with one of my specialisms being in advanced personal communications and collaboration applications. Over the last few years I have found myself on multiple conference calls, Zoom meetings, and Microsoft Teams events that involve councils, tribunals, and courts. My experience is that while these tools are generally satisfactory, they are far from ideal. Public meetings or court proceedings are specialist activities, with requirements that differ from generic professional work.

Back in 2023 I dropped a freedom of information request to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (since renamed Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government). I asked if there were any official standard or guidelines for the use of virtual meeting technologies in conducting official business that involves the public. I got the following response that I forgot to publish. It isn’t really a fob-off — it just states that we are in a relatively immature stage of this technology adoption.

Dear Martin Geddes,

Thank you for your email to ministers dated 4 October 2023 in which you raise the important issue of the use of technology in broadcasting online public meetings. I am sorry for the delay in sending you a reply.

It is for individual local authorities to agree and determine, through their standing orders, the provisions for remote access of public and press to local authority meetings, as well as remote access to meeting papers. Typically, both press and members of the public can already attend remotely to all webcast meetings, and meeting agendas and papers are routinely shared in advance of meetings on council websites.

Where the law is concerned, for the avoidance of doubt, Schedule 12 of the Local Government Act 1972 sets out the rules for holding council meetings and is clear that councillors taking part in a council meeting should be physically present in the place where the meeting is taking place.

If you have further thoughts on how the technology underpinning the broadcast of local council meetings may be improved to support public access, I recommend you reach out to your specific council directly.

Thank you for taking the time to write to us.

Yours sincerely,
Carole (Why does nobody in officialdom have a surname!)
Correspondence Unit

I don’t really have a problem with this response, just that a meaningful modernisation of government in the Internet age is overdue. There are times when we should come together physically, but virtual events and working are now a permanent feature of life.

Here are the issues that I have noted myself.

Accessibility and Inclusion

• Agenda: Meeting agendas are often distributed separately from the virtual event invitation, meaning participants may have the meeting link but lack crucial context to prepare or engage effectively. A platform-integrated agenda could ensure all attendees have access to the same information in one place.

• Inclusion: Many online meeting tools fail to address the needs of participants with disabilities. Features like live transcription for the hearing impaired or screen-reader compatibility for the visually impaired are either absent or inconsistent, creating barriers to participation.

• Contact Info: Public officials should be contactable, at least indirectly, for follow-ups. Virtual platforms don’t replicate the informal interactions of physical meetings, where attendees can approach officials afterward for clarification or discussion.

• Anonymity: In physical meetings, participants’ presence is observable without requiring personal details. Online meetings lack this balance, as participants can hide their identities completely, which can cause discomfort or reduce accountability.

Transparency and Accountability

• Minutes: Proper record-keeping is a cornerstone of public governance. Meeting minutes should be linked to the virtual event record and cross-referenced with previous and subsequent meetings for clarity and continuity. Currently, this process is fragmented or absent.

• Non-repudiation: Corrupt officials can claim events occurred differently than they did, or that certain actions weren’t taken. Platforms could address this by incorporating immutable records, such as blockchain, to verify attendance, agenda items, and outcomes.

• Recording: Digital recordings of meetings can be a double-edged sword. While useful for transparency, permanent records may deter open discussions or forgiveness for minor mistakes. Determining what should be recorded, stored, and accessible is a complex ethical issue.

• Archival: Unlike traditional government records kept in town halls or courthouses, there’s no standardized approach to storing and indexing virtual meeting data. This lack of accessibility undermines public trust and continuity.

Role and Participation

• Role: Virtual meeting tools don’t identify the roles or affiliations of participants. Unlike in-person meetings, where roles are often clear, online meetings can lead to confusion about who holds authority or official positions.

• Observers: Virtual meetings are often limited by the host’s familiarity with managing large numbers of attendees. In one court case I observed, most of the public participants were unable to enter due to technical limitations or the host’s inexperience.

• Reach: Online meetings open up participation to a global audience, which can be a positive development for transparency. However, it raises concerns about whether participants without a direct stake in the issues should be able to attend or influence proceedings.

Ethical and Social Considerations

• Video: Video requirements can disproportionately affect participants who are insecure about their appearance, disabled, or from underrepresented groups. The demand to “look good” on camera can deter participation and make the virtual environment less inclusive.

• Weaponisation: Online meetings are vulnerable to disruptions, such as participants overloading attendance, adding distracting visuals, or engaging in inappropriate behavior. Establishing clear standards of behavior and enforcement mechanisms is essential.

• Protest: Physical meetings allow for protests outside the venue, providing a visible platform for dissent. Virtual meetings lack an equivalent, raising concerns about how to accommodate public opposition in the digital space.

Practical and Logistical Issues

• Advertising Link: Public meetings often rely on ad hoc methods to distribute links, such as posting them on websites or local noticeboards. This process can be inconsistent and prone to errors, making it difficult for the public to access meetings.

• Role of Physical Presence: While virtual meetings are convenient, there are moments where physical gatherings remain essential for fostering community and connection. Striking a balance between the two formats is crucial for effective governance.

---

We are likely heading towards a reconstruction of public service from the ground up over the next few years. The tools for “virtual governance” at the grassroots level, such as parent-teacher associations, are still immature. The careful deployment of collaboration technology can complement and improve our self-governance, yet we are still at a nascent stage. Maybe I will find myself going full circle professionally, and be tasked with taking this matter on! I could easily imagine pulling together an event with all the stakeholders to explore the issues and surface the opportunities.