Agenda item

Members will consider the draft corporate communications and engagement strategy which outlines how the council will communicate with residents, businesses, partners, community groups and stakeholders.

The report was presented by Head of Communications and Engagement and the Council Leader.

The Head of Communications and Engagement acknowledged the public speaker and explained that the strategy intended to developing a proper map of “seldom heard voices”.

He also discussed using partner advocates or “trusted voices” to help convey messaging and expressed the need to update the social media protocol to reflect that the executive was no longer a coalition.

Members asked about:

·       The social media protocol – specifically the council taking a more proactive approach to setting the record straight and correcting erroneous statements.

The Head of Communications and Engagement explained that dealing with misinformation and disinformation was a complex issue and creating advocates in online spaces could assist in correcting this messaging.

·       Whether the work of neighbourhood caretakers, health trainers and work undertaken by the Social Care teams, had been considered as part of the strategy.

The Head of Communications and Engagement responded that the work of neighbourhood caretakers could set a precedent for other frontline services and while the communications team had told their story, they had also asked the team to tell their own story. If this method proved to be a success, then that could be rolled out to other services.

The Council Leader added that communications team had really changed how the council communicates with residents, and as a result engagement levels had significantly increased. The new strategy, particularly the employment of personal stories, had really been successful.

·       How “trusted voices” are chosen to communicate on the council’s behalf.

The Head of Communications and Engagement clarified that the “trusted voices” were people and groups linked to an objective the team wished to communicate; for example, when reaching out to a community to discuss an issue, the council might look for a key business such as a local hairdresser’s to interact on its behalf.

As to who decided these voices, he said the communications team would make a judgement on how best to reach residents, whether through direct communication from the council or “trusted voices”.

·       Digital exclusion and whether the council could better acknowledge people who are not online.

The Head of Communications and Engagement acknowledged this issue and conceded it was something that could be looked into.

Members suggested that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation had undertaken work in this area and it was suggested the Council could potentially work with them.

The Council Leader also acknowledged this challenge, though she noted citywide magazines like Local Link were open to printing direct council communications, and this magazine had a circulation of 85,000 households.

·       The difference between communicating things people need to know and communicating things the council would like them to know.

The Head of Communications and Engagement assured that “bad” news was not being buried and giving residents information on local services was at the core of their work. He explained that there were limits to the extent the council could put certain information through official digital channels without impacting the algorithm, therefore care was taken to balance the information put out via official channels and use of partners was beneficial here.

The Council Leader added that partner organisations could be doing more to facilitate smoother communications and public engagement, but the renewed strategy allowed for these conversations to happen.

·       How it was decided whether a public response was provided by an Executive Member or an officer.

The Head of Communications and Engagement said the strategy outlined it should be an Executive Member speaking on policy and an officer speaking on process. A liaison via the political assistant was also outlined in the media protocol.

·       Whether the council could post in community groups or use social media and paid promotion to get more engagement.

The Head of Communications and Engagement suggested working with ward councillors and the Communities team on this.

He advised that “the council” (formally) often cannot join community groups due to entrance criteria, but it was certainly possible for ward councillors to join community groups and advocate.

He confirmed that paid posts were used by CYC to promote projects such as Station Gateway and acknowledged that Emojis/TikTok could be a potential strategy, but that more work would need to be done regarding how to best use these with the team’s current limited resources.

·       How the stated delivery priorities had been chosen.

The Council Leader confirmed that the delivery priorities were outlined by the administration, having been laid out in the Council Plan, which spoke to the city’s priorities.

Members suggested that within the strategy it should be explicitly stated “why we are doing this” and providing information of use to residents getting to where they need to get to.

The Chair summarised suggestions, and the committee

Resolved:   To note the draft strategy, with particular regard to the following considerations:

a.         The approach and actions within the strategy to enable the Council to achieve the following aims:

                                                               i.        To directly support the council’s core commitments and priorities

                                                              ii.        To communicate effectively with all the groups listed, in order to deliver the roles of the function.

                                                            iii.        To be inclusive and accessible in how this is done. 

b.         The need to structure the work in the most effective way to ensure delivery against the Council Plan priorities and organisation’s objectives.

c.          To ensure the proposed approach to branding and tone of voice supports the objectives of the strategy.

Reason:      To support effective delivery of the communications function.