Item 8 - Review of Hybrid Meetings of Council and Committees
West Dunbartonshire Council · 27 August 2025
Back to West Dunbartonshire Council — 27 August 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL Report by Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration West Dunbartonshire Council: 27 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Subject: Review of Hybrid Meetings of Council and Committees 1. Purpose 1.1 To review the current issues relating to the provision of hybrid meetings of Council and its committees and consider the various options available to the Council. 2. Recommendation 2.1 It is recommended that Council: (a) approves option 2, subject to a successful trial in August, as detailed in paragraph 5.5 of the report below, which involves replacing the old hybrid unit with an up-to-date model at the cost of £4262.44; and (b) approves the proposal to replace the 28 conference units and microphones, at a cost of £48,436.77. 3. Background 3.1 In August 2018, Council considered the option to webcast its meeting to the public but decided to opt for the audiocasting of certain Council and committee meetings at the lower annual cost of £3900. 3.2 In November 2020, Council considered the introduction of hybrid meetings but decided not to proceed at that time. Members may recall that all Council meetings were being conducted remotely via ZOOM as it was not considered safe to meet in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, in 2021, following the roll out of the government vaccination programme, it was considered safe to return to meetings in person but under strict rules on distance and hygiene. This prompted the need for a hybrid solution which was quickly introduced in the Civic Space at a one-off capital cost of £12,000. 4. Main Issues 4.1 The original hybrid system has now been in operation for approximately four years and has served its initial purpose but as Members will be aware it has failed on several occasions recently and is no longer considered to be reliable. Accordingly, the Chief Executive instructed the Manager of Democratic and Registration Services to investigate what options were available to the Council and submit a report to Council with recommendations. ITEM 8
Page 2
5. Options Appraisal 5.1 The Manager of Democratic and Registration Services has suggested three different options for the Council to consider: Option 1 – Stop hybrid meetings and continue with audiocasting council and committee meeting to the public; Option 2 – Replace the current equipment with a similar but more up to date hybrid system; and Option 3 – Replace the current system with a fully supported webcasting model which will facilitate hybrid meetings and will also allow the public to view and listen to Council meetings. Option 1 – Stop Hybrid Meetings 5.2 This option is to stop operating hybrid meetings for all Council and Committee meetings but to continue with the audiocasting model to allow members of the public to listen to meetings remotely. This is clearly the cheapest option for Council to consider and will not involve any additional cost as the annual cost of supporting audiocasting is included in the revenue estimates budget. However, it will mean that all officers and members will need to attend meetings in person which may not be possible given other commitments and could result in a poorer attendance at meetings. Attendance levels have been higher since the introduction of hybrid meetings as members and officers can still participate even if unable to do so in person. As noted within the original Equality Impact Assessment (see Appendix 1), hybrid meetings are also more accessible for members with disabilities and the removal of this facility could be seen as a backwards step. For this reason, this option is not recommended. Option 2 – Replace the existing system with a similar hybrid model 5.3 The second option is to replace all existing hybrid equipment excluding cameras with new up to date equipment and to continue with audiocasting meetings to the public via Audiominutes. This option is not as expensive as option 3 and will cost £4262.44 capital with no recurring costs other than the existing audiocast fees (£4000 per annum). However, the supplier has advised that the current microphones in the hall are now eight years old and therefore it would not make sense to replace the hybrid kit without replacing the microphones which are likely to start to fail, as are the batteries which power them. The estimated cost of replacing the microphones and batteries is £48,436.77 resulting in a total capital cost of £52,699.21. The main benefit of this particular option is that hybrid meetings can continue to operate as they currently do but without the same issues as before. As members will know, the new equipment was tested during June and although there were issues with the audio in the hall, which have now been resolved, the new hybrid equipment has worked effectively with those members joining remotely being able to fully participate in meetings. The Committee Services Team will continue to trial the new equipment throughout August, including at the full Council meeting. It should also be noted that even if Council decides to stop hybrid meetings, replacement microphones or an alternative means of amplifying sound in the Civic Space will be required at some point.
Page 3
Option 3 – Replace the existing system with a fully supported webcasting model 5.4 This option is the most expensive model in terms of capital purchase, installation and recurring costs. It involves installing a full webcasting service which facilitates both hybrid meetings and allows the public to see and hear the public meetings. The procurement of such a system may require a full tendering process to establish best value but officers will also investigate the possibility of using the Crown Commercial Services framework to acquire parts of the service which may reduce the time taken to purchase the system. Similar to Option 2, this model will involve the purchase of new microphones but in order to keep costs as low as possible it is proposed that elected members and officers (with exception of the Convener and the legal officer) share a microphone. This model will also require the purchase of at least four cameras and will use the new microphones to track the speaker which will mean that both people attending from home and public will have a clear view of who is speaking. It is estimated that the cost of providing this model in the Civic Space will be approximately £69,690 including 27 new conference units and microphones. However, one of the main advantages of this system is that all meetings are monitored and managed remotely by sound engineers, at a cost of £14,373.77 per annum (based on a five-year contract) with an upfront payment of £71,868.86. Therefore, if any issues arise during a meeting, a sound engineer would be available to investigate and rectify the issue. It should also be noted that the Council would not need to continue with the Audiominutes contract thus reducing the net annual cost by approximately £4000. 5.5 As previously stated this is by far the most expensive option available to the Council at a time when the Council is under immense financial pressure to reduce its costs. That said, many other local authorities have opted for this webcasting solution which appears to be both reliable and effective. Other issues - Acoustics 5.6 The acoustics within the Civic Space continues to be a problem. Both sets of audio engineers who have conducted site visits recently have advised there is very little they can do to improve the sound quality and reduce the echo in the room – replacing the microphones will not resolve the issue. 5.7 If the Council decides on option 3, contrary to the recommendation, then there will be a delay in procuring and installing the new equipment which will need to be thoroughly tested before going live. The contractor has advised that there is usually a twelve-week window between awarding the contract and installation. Given that the tender process could take a few months and the unreliability of the current equipment, Council is asked to suspend the operation of hybrid meetings until the work has been completed.
Page 4
Shared Microphones 5.8 One way of reducing the above costs would be to reduce the number of desk conference units and microphones being purchased which would mean that members and officers (with exception of the Chair and Legal Officer) would need to share a microphone which could result in a saving of £14,251.95. However, this would greatly affect the resilience of the system. Even if only one or two units failed then there would be insufficient units available to run a full council meeting effectively. Accordingly, his option is not recommended. 6. People Implications 6.1 A hybrid meeting requires an additional member of staff to be in attendance at the meeting to control online access as well as to operate the Audiominutes live broadcast and recording. However, as this reflects the current model of support no further staff resources will be required to operate these systems. 6.2 The introduction of a fully supported webcasting solution will reduce the pressure on committee services staff who have been under pressure to deliver hybrid meetings without any external technical support which can be stressful at times. 6.3 Introduction of fully supported webcasting solution also reduces strain on ICT staff who are expected to respond when issues occur during live meetings or in pre-meeting testing and provide technical support on a system that does not fall within their normal remit or expertise and ability to influence/resolve issues 7. Financial and Procurement Implications 7.1 As stated within Section 5, the only option without any additional cost is Option 1 – to stop hybrid meetings but nevertheless replacement microphones will be required at some point. Both Options 2 and 3 will incur capital funding and accordingly would need to be funded from the Council’s Capital Programme. The Strategic Asset Management Group have approved the costs involved, if Council approves option 2, as recommended. 7.2 In terms of procurement, option 2 would be provided by the existing provider, SSUK, who are top ranked on the Scotland Excel Audio Visual Framework (Ref: 0822). The framework does allow for ranked direct award and therefore further tendering is not required, if approved. If Council agrees to proceed with Option 3, the Manager of Democratic and Registration Services will liaise with the procurement team to identify the best procurement route for the full webcasting service. Given the value this may require a mini-competition from existing framework to ensure best value is being achieved.
Page 5
8. Risk Analysis 8.1 There are several reputational risks depending on which option the Council decides to choose. If Council stops hybrid meetings altogether then it may receive adverse comments from press and public which could damage its reputation. If the Council decides to proceed with option 2, there is the risk that the system could fail at some point in the future thus resulting in reputational damage but at present, the system appears to be working well (subject to further testing in August). The current position of the hybrid system cabinet (inside the chamber) poses a risk to damaged cables. If Option 2 is approved, the Manager of Democratic and Registration Services will work with the supplier to relocate the hybrid unit to a safer location. Option 3 is the most expensive option but carries the least risk of failure as the system is fully supported by audio engineers who would be available to deal with any issues as they arise. However, there is the risk that the Council will be criticised for purchasing an expensive system at a time when it is under severe financial pressure to reduce its costs. 9. Equalities Impact Assessment (EIA) 9.1 An EIA was carried out on the introduction of hybrid meetings which identified that there could be an inequality issue for those members who were unable to participate in meetings in person due to underlying health conditions or a physical disability and therefore would not have the choice to do so. On review of the EIA it is still considered that all factors considered relevant then, remain so and there are no additional factors to be considered. A copy of the original EIA is attached as an appendix to this report. 10. Consultation 10.1 Officers from Legal, Procurement, ICT, Asset Management and Finance have been consulted on the contents of this report. 11. Strategic Assessment 11.1 This report does not impact directly on the Council’s strategic objectives as it recommends that the Council should continue to operate hybrid meetings using a new equipment. Name: Alan Douglas Designation Chief Officer – Regulatory and Regeneration Date: 28/07/2025 Person to Contact: George Hawthorn, Manager of Democratic and Registration Services, Municipal Buildings, College Street, Dumbarton. Telephone 01389 737204 or email: george.hawthorn@west-dunbarton.gov.uk
Page 6
Appendices: Equality Impact Assessment on introduction of Hybrid Meetings. Background Papers: None Wards Affected: None.