Monday, April 21, 2008

More on TechnoLebo

Commissioner Dan Miller sent me the following comments on my "TechnoLebo" post, concerning televising and webcasting of municipal meetings:

You recently posed a question in a post entitled "TechnoLebo" asking why aren't School Board and Commission meetings webcasted. I thank you for asking this question and I thought I would give you my thoughts on the topic.

I don't think it's a secret that I have been a strong proponent for broadcasting all public Commission meetings on television and the Internet. Last year I ran on a platform of bringing more transparency and accountability to our local government. To me, this naturally includes broadcasting our Commission meetings.

To that end, the Commission recently tasked the Municipal staff to create a report of broadcasting options and to make a recommendation. This report was completed and discussed publicly on March 24th.

The report separated broadcasting into two options: 1) webcasting, and 2) cablecasting. It stated that Bethel Park and Peters already cablecast, and of course, so does the Mt. Lebanon School District. It also noted that the Municipality is provided with three PEG (public, education and government) channels by Comcast and Verizon. The School Board broadcasts their meetings on channel 19. The report also recognized that the national trend is towards webcasting (see the Allegheny County Council for an excellent example).

There are obvious differences between webcasting and cablecasting. Of primary concern may be that webcasting carries with it an annual cost for hosting of approximately $28,000. Cablecasting would include a start up cost of between $9,000 to $21,000 (depending on type and number of cameras) but would then have a much lower annual cost attached to it. The School Board estimated it spent $30,000 for their equipment. Additionally, residents obviously need to have Internet access to view a webcast whereas cable access is likely more accessible to a greater number of residents at this time.

Both formats raise some content oriented questions. Should they be taped or live broadcasts? How long would the Municipality keep the tapes for? Who actually puts the program together? Does producing also mean content control? How do you handle editing? Are there any liability issues?

At first glance this may seem like a heavy list to debate. But yet Bethel Park, Peters and our own School Board have resolved such issues. Is this Commission really to say that they are too daunting for us to address?

It has also been raised by some that by broadcasting our meetings in any fashion we will be inviting grandstanding by citizens and Commissioners alike. Personally I find this to be a hallow argument. I have talked to members of our School Board and they have been unable to give me an example of such a situation. Also, if our constituents find are words or actions to be without substance or justification then they will be able to voice their displeasure at the next election. Additionally, if Commissioners may fear greater scrutiny of their words or votes, then perhaps this greater sense of accountability may foster more forethought in advance of them. I would probably benefit from that as well.

In the final analysis the Municipal report recommended cablecasting with fixed cameras- if the Commission wanted to proceed. This is where the issue now rests.

Ideally, I believe we should have our public Commission meetings broadcasted on the Internet and television. This would allow near complete access for all citizens (and since our School Board meetings often overlap, this would stop citizens from having to choose to attend one or the other in order to see what their local government officials are up to). I do believe that this could progress gradually with the first step being cable. I also can understand the possibility of waiting until 2009 for implementation given that such costs were not factored into this years budget. But I believe the Commission can take a strong forward-thinking approach to this topic and start the ball rolling for full disclosure in 2009. To me, whether it is online or on TV, this is going to happen eventually. I just wonder how many more municipalities need to shine light on their meetings before Mt. Lebanon wakes up.

Regardless, this fight was a campaign promise of mine so I will continue to raise this issue every year until it passes.

Thanks for the opportunity to respond.

Sincerely,

Dan Miller
5th Ward Commissioner

Labels:

Bookmark and Share

7 Comments:

Blogger Burgher Jon said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

April 21, 2008 6:14 PM  
Blogger Bill Matthews said...

Dan Miller is exactly right on this!

The meetings should be televised. On a good day there are not more than 0.5% of MTL households that get to see our Commission in action. It is astonishing to me the current Commission is so slow to embrace this level of transparency and connection with the Community.

April 21, 2008 6:35 PM  
Blogger Mike Madison said...

Assuredly Dan Miller has heard of YouTube. The question is whether the Municipality of Mt. Lebanon has considered saving money by distributing content via YouTube. *That* would really be pushing the envelope of progressivism.

The answer to the second question is "yes." I also coordinate a third blog, a fourth blog, and even at times a fifth.

April 21, 2008 7:05 PM  
Blogger Yale Class of 1983 said...

Dan Miller sent me the following follow-up to burgher jon:

Hi Jon-

I'll take your comment as an effort to be constructive. The idea of posting video to youtube has been discussed and will continue to be discussed.

But I think you are forgetting a necessary first step. How can you post the meetings on youtube if you aren't recording them?

I think you are saying that you agree that the public should be able to view our meetings so that's a good thing in my book. But in order for that to happen the Commission must vote to allow for equipment to be purchased and policies to be written. It is a little bit more complicated than throwing the family picnic up on youtube. Of course I share your zeal and believe something is better than nothing- but we also need to have equipment that allows for good audio and sound quality and perhaps the capability to edit the material together. Again that would depend on the policy to be written.

I do welcome your ideas so if you have some expertise please feel free to share here or through my website at www.danmillerward5.com. Also this topic will be discussed at the upcoming Commission meeting on April 28th so I invite you to attend and participate.

April 21, 2008 8:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for championing this Dan!

It's hard for me to understand why any of the commissioners would be against this. I should think that every commissioner would feel compelled to reach as many of their constituents as possible. If they feel otherwise they should consider not holding public office.

I'm stunned that a community with so many excellent resources has been dragging its feet on a public service that many comparable communities around the country have had for 20+ years.

April 21, 2008 9:47 PM  
Blogger Mark Rauterkus said...

I'm available for consulting. I don't want to be paid with cupcakes, however. I'm trying to watch my waist. -- err -- waste.

Cheesburgers are okay.

Jon blogged about this and gave me a chuckle. But, it is a serious topic.

I can and have pointed my video camera at my TV.

Mark -at- Rauterkus dot com
412 298 3432 = cell

April 21, 2008 11:39 PM  
Blogger Mike Madison said...

I had to go back in and delete burgherjon's comment above -- sorry, burgherjon! -- because of BlogLebo's policy on anonymous comments. (I know burgherjon via Pittsblog, so I let it by without a second thought.)

burgherjon blogs at his own blog in Pittsburgh. His comment here was brief -- wondering semi-seriously whether the commission had thought of YouTube, and wondering whether I also blog at Pittsblog.

April 22, 2008 9:13 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home