|
Graffiti focus group at what price? Your story into Brent’s graffiti consultation persuades me to raise further questions about whether our money is being spent wisely (‘Money wasted on graffiti fact finding survey’, Times, Dec 11). I participated in a graffiti focus group for residents on 26 November at Brent Town Hall. After signing up, I received two reminders by post, but was surprised to learn only at the meeting itself that: A. Participants would be offered £25 each. The excuse given for not advertising the fee in advance was to avoid people signing up for the “obvious” motive. But does not this secrecy result in lack of equal opportunity between those who might happen to know about it through precedent or friends and those who don’t? The fact that the Council could not establish whether somebody came mainly for the money is hardly a reason to conceal that offer from other potential participants who were indirectly footing the bill through their taxes. If the Council thought it could not afford to offer, or justify, an inducement publicly then isn’t that a reason not to offer one at all? B. The proceedings would be recorded. I objected, on principle, that we should have been forewarned about the recording and allowed to proceed without it, if some felt less able to speak freely otherwise. The chair replied that the recording was a compulsory “market research technique” and anybody who felt unable to participate would still be entitled to the money. But offering money as a consolation on such terms only cheapens the motive for participating, such as civic duty. Moreover, putting participants in a situation where they could not reasonably reject the recording, and without forewarning, lacks informed consent. These protocols raise serious questions about transparency and fairness, all the more astonishing coming from a consultation team. I participated in an otherwise well-organised meeting, but declined the attendance fee. Shahrar Ali Green Candidate for the European Parliament London Region Brent Green Party |
|
Letter published in |