November 5: Kent TV in line for award
Unless I’ve missed
something, Kent County Council seems to have been
rather modest about the possibility that Kent TV,
its controversial internet TV station, is up for an award.
It seems that the project - whose fate is to
be determined shortly - has been shortlisted in something called
the 4th
European e-government Awards which I must admit I’ve never
heard of but is apparently a public contest rather like the
X-Factor.
Still, it’s rather odd that KCC – which has
generally been quite keen to talk up the merits of Kent TV when it
can - has been a touch coy about its prospects of securing glory in
this competition which you can read about here.
(I've searched the KCC website for any mention of this and can't
find anything.)
The awards ceremony takes place in Malmo,
Sweden on November 19 and Kent TV is one of 52 finalists
shortlisted across four categories in a prize that is determined by
a public vote.
The entry submitted on behalf of Kent TV which
you can see here makes
interesting reading, particularly when it comes to the costs and
savings as you can see from this extract here:
“Costing only £600,000 per annum, Kent TV,
as part of a wider cost saving strategy, has helped in saving Kent
County Council (KCC) over £200,000 in the past year and is
forecasted to save £1 million in the next year. The services has
attracted attention from all over the UK with other Councils and
local authorities expressing a wish to launch their own local TV,
as well as attracting attention from all over the world.”
Note the word "only".
And in another extract, KCC makes the claim that Kent TV’s
editorial independence has enabled it to tackle stories that County
Hall might have not approved of:
“The editor is entirely responsible for the creative content
and makes decisions with regards to what topics and issues should
be covered by the four journalists. The editor employed by the
contracted company delivering Kent TV and is therefore completely
independent from the council. This enables the channel to be
impartial and cover any topic they may wish. This impartiality has
meant that in the past Kent TV has been able to cover stories which
the council might not ordinarily have
sanctioned.”
There’s are also one or two tantalising hints that Kent TV might
indeed be continued once the pilot project – extended to March 2010
– comes to an end.
The entry award states: “Currently Kent TV is funded
entirely by Kent County Council, however in the future we would
envisage that the service would be part funded by other authorities
in Kent, including NHS, Fire and Police.”
I’ve no idea whether Kent TV will win and since the vote is a
public one that anyone can take part in, it’s rather an
unpredictable affair. But I remain rather baffled as to why this is
the first I’ve heard of it.
And the timing could have been a little better. Next Friday,
county councillors will have their first glimpse of - and chance to
discuss - a report that reviews the project.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Who wants to know what Kent County Council is up to? Well, me of
course.
And one of the ways that I and others try to
keep people informed about what all councils are up to – not just
County Hall – is through the Freedom of Information
Act.
There are some politicians at County Hall who
are reported to regard FOI as something of a thorn in their
side and would much prefer it if it had never reached the statute
books.
I’ve also heard of complaints that dealing
with FOI requests is something of a drain on resources – both in
officer time and money.
Personally, I’ve generally found KCC pretty
fair and reasonable over the requests I’ve made, with some notable
exceptions. And I know that KCC has itself used the Act to get to
information from other public bodies, particularly central
Government.
I do sense that sometimes politicians seem to
think that it is just journalists who use the Act.
But an interesting
analysis of requests made to KCC since the Act came into force,
which you can see here, indicates that the bulk of requests come
from private individuals.
Of the 1,076 made so far this year, just - or
should that be "only" - 14 per cent have come from
the media and 64 per cent from private
individuals.
There was a similar trend in the years before,
too.
The analysis suggests that roughly 33 per cent
of requests have been rejected. On the surface, that sounds a lot
but it's worth pointing out that this includes those requests where
some information was disclosed and not all of it withheld.
Thursday, November 05 2009