MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 29 AUGUST 2006 AT COSLA HEADQUARTERS, HAYMARKET, EDINBURGH
Members were welcomed to the second meeting of the Cultural Planning and Entitlements Working Group.
Attendees: Douglas Paterson (Aberdeen City Council)
Ian Hooper (Glasgow City Council)
Joanne Orr (SMC)
Caroline Docherty (Scottish Arts Council)
Lindsay McGregor (CoSLA)
Frank Smith (North Ayrshire Council - deputising for John Travers)
Scottish Executive Secretariat:
Angela Saunders (SEED - deputising as Chair for Leslie Evans)
Sue Selwyn (SEED - Seconded from Falkirk Council)
Steven Macgregor (SEED)
Gillian Miller (SEED)
Apologies: Leslie Evans, Rod Stone, Councillor Graham Garvie, John Travers, Elaine Fulton.
2. Minutes of previous meeting - matters arising
2.1 The Minutes of the first meeting were agreed.
2.2 As discussed at the first meeting, AS advised the group that in the interest of transparency and raising awareness of the project, and to keep key stakeholders who were are not represented on the working group abreast of the conclusions reached by the group, that the minutes of the first meeting were available on the Scottish Executive website. The core script and roles and remit of the group had also been posted on the Executive's website.
2.3 The members agreed that they were content to post those documents onto their own organisations' websites, and would undertake to do so.
3. Paper 2 - Work plan update report
3.1 SS gave a brief introduction to her paper, which she had developed to report on action taken since the last meeting. Reasonable progress had been made: many useful consultations and meetings had taken place.
Main actions planned for the coming period were to:
· Elicit further information from authorities, building on CoSLA's paper, 'Cultural Planning and Entitlements - A Snapshot' and the questionnaire which informed it.
· Carry out telephone interviews of selected local authorities using another questionnaire which SS had produced, with additional questions. SS envisaged contacting around 12 local authorities in all, 6 from authorities who responded to the original questionnaire and 6 from those who did not manage to submit information.
· Visit a selection of the English Pathfinder Councils to learn from their experience of the DCMS quality assurance framework. Possible visits included Birmingham, Sheffield, Richmond-upon- Thames and Liverpool, selected following conversations with DCMS and lead officials delivering the projects.
3.2 It was noted that the pathfinder in Manchester did not use the DCMS quality assurance framework, but had opted to develop their own. It was agreed that a discussion with Manchester would, on this basis, be helpful.
3.3 SS advised the group that her learning from Scottish local authorities and the English Pathfinder Projects could inform a compendium document on good practice, planned as part of the final suite of guidance for local authorities.
3.4 SS posed questions to the group, which were discussed:
- Should the draft Guidance demonstrate links to the review of Sport 21 and how could this be achieved?
The similarities with the Review of Sport 21 were noted, and that some though not all local authorities might wish to include sport in their cultural entitlements agenda. It was agreed that the teams working on the two developing policy areas (culture and sport) would keep in regular contact. It was also suggested that:
· The guidance would acknowledge the links that exist. It would be possible subsequently for it to reflect sports policy developments as appropriate;
· SS and the secretariat would maintain contact with sportscotland and Sports Division officials;
· SS would ask cultural providers within local authorities about their relationship with sport, as part of her planned questionnaire or during other liaison activity; and
· It was desirable for consistent quality assurance approaches to be used, and the QA sub group being established would take account of that.
- Are members of the Group aware of areas or examples where cultural planning at a strategic level has been successful and is affecting other departments' spending and Community Planning processes?
· Members made some suggestions and SS reminded them of the local authorities she was planning to visit.
· The members were invited to accompany SS on visits to English local authorities who were hosting pathfinders.
· SS expressed an interest in meeting groups of people involved in different service areas of a local authority. She was also keen to meet with Community Planning Co-ordinators.
- What does the Group think are the issues around community engagement and community capacity building and the role of cultural services practitioners?
· The members agreed that this was a vital aspect for the guidance to address and that the new questionnaire (3.1) could take views on this point. SS had met with Communities Scotland and with Learning Connections for their input.
· Skills issues were noted and the role of training for local authorities' staff. The National Association of Local Government Arts Officers (NALGAO) would be invited to attend the Scottish Arts Council's next meeting of local authority arts officers; where they could discuss their seminar programme and its availability in Scotland.
· JO stressed the importance of local voluntary sector engagement and support.
· Members noted that Highland and Islands Enterprise's remit helpfully enabled development of social capital.
- Succession planning - is there a lack of experienced culture officials/strategic thinkers in this field? Is there a role for the Working Group/ draft Guidance?
· It was thought that this should be mentioned in the guidance. A discussion with Dundee City Council was suggested.
- How can we encourage local authorities to engage with the National Companies/Institutions and agencies?
· It was agreed that National Companies - and other bodies in receipt of national funding - and Local Authorities had a mutual interest in discussing entitlements.
· SS had spoken to the Scottish Arts Council, who might host a seminar to explore the issues with their funded bodies.
· It was noted that the matter of key definitions to appear in the guidance had yet to be addressed. It was agreed that this should be tabled for discussion at the next meeting.
4. Awareness raising / Information sharing - update from
members of Working Group
The group were asked what information / updates they would like to share with the group.
4.1 The Scottish Museums Council's project "Museums and Galleries for Every School" was currently being piloted with selected local authorities.
5. Culture Bill update
SM gave an update on the work of the Bill Team. Key points, which relate to the agenda of the working group, were:
· Links with Community Planning would be developed through the guidance rather than in terms of the Bill;
· The possibility of a clause/measure linked to the Best Value audit power that is already in place. This would allow Ministers to ask for an Audit Scotland inspection of local authority services - in this case, cultural services;
· The legislation would provide the power to ask for evidence of Cultural Planning i.e. a footprint rather than a plan. This would be a powerful legislative duty; and
· CD asked if a mapping of the operation of Community Planning was available.
ACTION: DP offered to provide a helpful mapping document of the Community Planning process for the next meeting.
The secretariat would conduct further exploration and discussions with relevant officials regarding the Best Value audit proposal.
6 Paper 3 - Establishment of Sub Groups
SS introduced the paper.
6.1 The group approved the role proposed for the sub group and the approach suggested. The sub group members agreed were:
Rod Stone (Aberdeenshire Council);
Susan Deighan, (Glasgow City Council);
Sue Selwyn (Falkirk Council and Scottish Executive); and
Angela Saunders (Scottish Executive).
6.2 It was agreed that an additional local authority member was desirable and that Ciaran Monghan from Aberdeen City Council should be encouraged to be involved on the QA sub group.
UPDATE: Final Membership is as above, including Ciaran Monghan. The first meeting of the subgroup is 27 October 2006 .
6.3 The group expressed a preference for the Quality Assurance tool in use for Community Learning and Development Services, as being a useful model.
6.4 It was agreed that the Guidance Working Group should be virtual and the members were invited to consider whether they wished to offer comment or assist in drafting specific areas of the guidance.
6.5 Regarding the prevailing approach to be taken in the guidance, members liked the non-prescriptive style of the Working and Learning Together guidance - also remarking on its link to an inspection regime.
7 Paper 4 - Cultural Pathfinder Update
It was noted that on 8 August, a letter was sent to all Scottish local authorities and Community Planning Partnerships, inviting them to consider whether they wished to bid to deliver one of a series of "pathfinder projects", designed to show how cultural entitlements could be implemented.
7.1 There was discussion around the proposed assessment arrangements to select the successful pathfinder proposals.
7.2 The Scottish Executive's analytical services team had been asked to develop an appraisal method to assess and 'score' the applications, and the information on evaluation etc, which they contained. The methods employed should demonstrate fair and appropriate selection of the best applications that met the objectives of the pathfinder programme.
7.3 It was agreed that the applications recommended for approval by the secretariat would be discussed at the next working group meeting. Members whose local authorities had submitted an application would observe arrangements to provide for appropriate impartiality. Thereafter, a submission would be made to obtain Ministers' approval for the funding awards. Members were content with what was proposed.
7.4 Members were informed about progress of plans for an Evaluation Toolkit, which would be provided for those local authorities who were successful in their bid to host a pathfinder project.
8 AOCB and Date of Next Meeting
8.1 No issues were raised under any other business.
8.2 There was discussion around the location of the next meeting. RS and JO both kindly offered to host the next meeting. However, after consideration by the group, it was agreed that COSLA HQ in Edinburgh was a more convenient location for most members.
8.3 The next meeting would be on 2 October 2006 at 3pm and would be held at CoSLA HQ, Edinburgh Haymarket.
SEED: CULTURAL PLANNING AND ENTITLEMENTS WORKING GROUP
SECRETARIAT
SEPTEMBER 2006