Members: Will Forster
(WF), Bob Gardner (BG), Nick Harrison (NH), Richard Walsh (RW)
Officers:
Clive Mentzel (CM)
Key
points raised during the discussion:
WF outlined
the potential recommendations that he formulated, which were
circulated in an email prior to this meeting. NH invited comments
on these.
RW asked
exactly how the budget consultation with residents, as mentioned in
WF’s potential recommendations, would be done. The Council
should make choices in a succinct way that the public would
appreciate and understand. WF responded that this point was about
using processes to obtain survey data.
Budget
consultation gave residents some choice and the ability to weigh up
pros and cons. The Task Group was looking at the Council going down
this route.
Members
emphasised that as part of resident budget consultation it was
important to give respondents options and information. Asking
residents what they wanted the budget to be without any specific
options was not helpful as answers could be lacking in direction.
It was also deemed important to differentiate between statutory
services, where there may be minimum levels of spending, and
non-statutory services.
NH
mentioned a residents’ consultation he had encountered at
another Local Authority (LA) in the past, which had a format
whereby respondents had to provide their top three areas or
preferences for the Council. He was of the opinion that this was a
good format to consider.
BG said
that Surrey County Council had conducted research in the past where
they asked a panel of residents to allocate a sum of money to
services, which made residents realise the difficult choices when
it came to the budget. However, as residents could struggle to find
a solution without the broader context and background about where
to allocate funds, this sort of consultation may not be very
useful, as it may not provide answers.
RW remarked
that consulting with residents using methods beyond the survey
could be difficult as certain group, for example, Councillors and
others who had contact with the Council, could have their own
vested interests and political considerations.
NH
reflected that it would be useful to ask residents the reasons for
their opinions on the budget. This would provide a range of
opinions, be more instructive and hopefully provide some guidance
on what could make residents change their minds. However, BG was
wary about giving residents the option to say they wanted no
council tax at all.
BG noted
that it would be useful to compare Surrey’s Residents’
Survey response rates with those of Hertfordshire, being a
statistically similar LA. WF reminded Members that with comparisons
of this sort, it was important to not just compare with a
statistically similar LA, but also a LA with a similar method of
survey, as these varied widely.
NH summarised
that there should be public consultation in two forms – a
general survey, together with a more structured survey that used
in-depth questions and answers. This could be borne in mind as a
potential recommendation of the Task Group.
2.
Members' Enquiries
Share this item
Minutes:
Witnesses:
Rachel Basham, Member Services Manager
Key
points raised during the discussion:
CM said
that following the Contact Centre visit he had spoken with the
Member Services Manager about the initiatives she was taking, and
had circulated a paper written by the Member Services Manager on
this topic prior to this meeting.
The Member
Services Manager expressed hope that the recommendations of the
Task Group might support the work that she was doing on Member
interaction and training with Customer Services. The Leader of the
Council had asked for work to be initiated on improving a joined-up
approach between Democratic Services and Customer Services, to
ensure that Customer Services provided quick, good quality
responses to Members’ enquiries. The Member Services Manager
met with the Customer Relations and Service Improvement Manager
monthly to receive performance info, and would report this to
Members every six months.
Around half
of Members never used the councillors’ customer service
hotline. There was a need for training for Members, as many Members
were not confident in using the online self-serve reporting tool.
The Member Services Manager was working with Customer Services on
developing a training course on this and hoped to roll out a pilot
in summer 2020.
Work would
be done on the quality of responses that Members received through
dip-testing.
It was
important to acknowledge that there was pressure on Customer
Services at the moment because of Covid-19. A new inbox for
Members’ Covid-19 related enquiries had been set up; it had a
24-hour turnaround and was a collaboration between Democratic
Services and Customer Services.
BG
responded that he did use the online reporting system to report
issues that residents had raised in-person with him. He was of the
opinion that guidance for the public was also important, so that
they knew that they could report issues online rather than having
to report via Members.
Also,
Members agreed that it would be useful to receive feedback on
reporting and on whether each enquiry would be followed up or not.
NH remarked that it may be easier to collect this information for
online enquiries than telephone enquiries. NH further expressed
preference for online enquiries as they provided a more permanent
record of the enquiry, meaning that it might be more likely that
enquiries would be followed up and resolved.
NH said he
had thought that the Customer Services Members’ enquiries
inbox was only for highways related enquiries, so he had been
surprised to learn recently that it was for enquiries relating to
all services. The Member Services Manager said it was useful to
know this and perhaps efforts should be made to ensure all Members
were aware it was not only for highways enquiries.
RW said
that he used the Members’ inbox for all enquiries after
discovering it could be used so, and he found it satisfactory.
However, the responses came directly from Officers to Members,
meaning that these could contain sensitive information and would
need to be edited before they could be passed on ...
view
the full minutes text for item 2.
3.
Visit to Contact Centre, 6 March 2020
Share this item
Minutes:
Key
points raised during the discussion:
NH
mentioned the low uptake of customer contact surveys, which were
offered to customers on the phone after they had made an enquiry.
Low uptake for this type of survey was common; however, it could be
more effective to conduct a phone survey a day or so after the
enquiry. It would be good to attain feedback for Customer Services
this way. BG added that taking residents’ feedback on
Customer Services was a good thing as it showed that the Council
took their enquiries seriously. NH suggested that this could be
considered as a recommendation of the Task Group.
NH praised
the staff and the level of engagement that Task Group Members had
witnessed at their visit to the Contact Centre. He asserted that it
would be useful for all Members to visit, even if they had visited
before some years ago, and perhaps this could be organised. RW
agreed and added that the most fascinating part of the visit was
listening in on customers’ calls. NH said that he listened
for 45 minutes or so during the visit, and was also impressed by
staff’s response to calls, and residents’ reasonable
and positive demeanour on calls.
At the
Contact Centre, NH observed that even in a case when an Officer
could not give a conclusive answer to a customer’s query, the
Officer gave practical advice and the customer had a positive
response.
NH asked
what the situation was with following up on information outstanding
on the Residents’ Survey as actions from the Task
Group’s 2 March meeting, and from Customer Services on
contact details for benchmarking visits to District and Borough
customer service centres. Members were informed that this would be
followed up when the relevant Officers were less busy with the
Covid-19 response.
RW noted
that the Task Group should consider the Covid-19 virus and where
things would be in three to six months’ time. For the
customer services benchmarking visits, he considered it preferable
to visit other LAs in-person rather than remotely in order to grasp
the ‘flavour’ of their customer services, not just the
bare facts. It was important for the Task Group to discuss the next
six months to a year and how meetings would fit within this
timescale. Members and CM agreed that it would not be practical to
visit any other LAs in the next six months, nor would now be the
right time to send surveys to other LAs, as they would be occupied
with the Covid-19 response.
Members
agreed that a visit to Hertfordshire would be desirable, due to
that LA’s statistical similarity with Surrey.
NH observed
that ways of working in LA customer services would change due to
the social transformation effected by the virus, and these changes
could also be scrutinised.
Actions/further information to be provided:
For
Democratic Services Officers to follow up on information
outstanding from the actions of the Residents’ Survey meeting
and District and Borough customer services contact details when
relevant ...
view the full minutes text for item 3.
4.
Members' Survey
Share this item
Minutes:
Key
points raised during the discussion:
NH informed Members
that there were 26 responses to the Members’
survey.
RW remarked that the
survey results were pretty much as expected. Even if the number of
respondents seemed low (26 out of 81 Members), it was a normal
proportion for this sort of survey. However, the Council could look
into making this sort of surveys opt-out rather than opt-in to
increase uptake.
NH said that in the
Task Group’s report, it could be helpful to highlight the top
responses from the survey. However, he does not think that the
results of the survey are surprising. NH asked Democratic Services
Officers to look through the survey and draw out key
findings.
WF reflected that the
Task Group wished to ensure that the report was released by the
municipal elections, which had been delayed until May 2021 because
of the virus. He asked what the timetable was for the report
pre-Covid-19. NH replied that it had been expected that the Task
Group’s work would be completed by April 2020, but that this
deadline had been looking unlikely even before the virus emerged.
NH expressed the hope that the Task Group’s work could be
finished by autumn 2020, but it was noted that December 2020 was a
more realistic target for the completion of the Group’s
work.
NH advised that it
would be best to wait until the end of April before contacting
Officers with the Task Group’s queries and
requests.
RW said that the
virus would probably peak during the next three months. If the Task
Group could make some progress before the end of June then visiting
other LAs by autumn 2020 could be considered.
Actions/further information to be provided:
For Democratic
Services Officers to look through the Members’ survey and
draw out key findings.
PDF 74 KB