Lehigh County Comm'rs: We Don't Need No Steenkin' Webcasts

Had Lehigh County Commissioners voted last night on Dean Browning's proposal to webcast public commissioner meetings, the whole idea would have gone down in flames. Its $39 thousand pricetag is the supposed stumbling block, but the truth is that most Lehigh County legislators would rather see you spend your evenings watching American Idol.

After claiming to have stayed up all night, agonizing like Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, Cosponsor Bill Leiner withdrew his support. In fact, each Democratic commissioner voiced reservations. Could this be payback to Republican Commissioner candidates who pledged to refuse a payhike? If so, that's pretty stupid. Voters tend to distrust elected officials who exclude them.

In addition to the Democrats, Chairman Percy Dougherty is dead set against the idea. He proudly handed out copies of an email he sent out earlier that day. It's on asbestos, and I've appended it at the end of my post. Sterling Raber is with Dougherty on this one. So is Glenn Echkart, but only because of the high cost.

That leaves Dean Browning and Andy Roman as the sole proponents of transparent government in Lehigh County.

True, the $39 thousand pricetag for this proposal - presented by local firm Communications Systems, Inc. (CSI) - is well over twice the $15 thousand originally discussed with another vendor, but that vendor also had an annual $15 thousand maintenance fee. CSI, on the other hand, proposes a $1 to $2 thousand yearly operating fee. So CSI is actually the least expensive proposal. This cost objection is a thinly veiled smokescreen. Frankly, it appears that Lehigh Commissioners worry you might get just a little too interested.

Comm'r David Jones, in his sermon from the mount, makes that pretty clear.



In his remarks, Jones claims that it's important to have data, and then supplies none. He implies there is very little interest in Lehigh County's web page. That's complete baloney. Want some data, Reverend Jones? Go to Alexa, the site used by advertisers for web traffic metrics. The Lehigh County web page is already the fifth most popular Lehigh Valley web page, and that's without webcasts.

"We're talking about something that's not a core function of county government. There's not a huge demand, beating on the door, for this. ... I'll be frank here. My biggest concern is what that camera will do, in terms of the integrity of our proceedings. And I don't have the confidence that we will conduct ourselves in a way that's unbiased."

So let me get this straight. Jones believes open and transparent government is not a "core function." Moreover, instead of believing sunshine is a great disinfectant, a public spotlight will ruin the "integrity" of public meetings. I see.

In stark contrast to Jones, Commissioner Andy Roman argues that webcasting is an important step in the right direction.



"One of the things that I think is really important is making every effort to make government more accessible to the public and not less accessible. Just a few weeks back, we made online campaign reporting available. I think that was a definite move in the right direction in terms of modernizing the way we do business and having full disclosure where people are receiving campaign contributions. When it comes now to putting your names on the Internet, if you will, I think it's a step in the right direction because I think in a modern society people are busy, people have families, and although they may want to come out to a meeting, they just may not be able to because of a very busy schedule."

Roman notes that webcasts can become important sources of information should newspapers decline and falter. They are also educational tools.

"Anytime we can bring more people into the government process - the democratic process - the better. ... If we want government to be viewed as an old crony arena, let's just disconnect the Internet from government proceedings and that's what we'll get."

Dean Browning, who sponsors this initiative, urges commissioners to "take advantage of the technology that we have to expand the reach of county government. We sit here night after night and look at basically the same crowd of folks that come to county government."

While claiming the current proposal is too costly, Eckhart distinguishes himself from Jones. "There is demand for open and transparent government. ... I disagree with the grandstanding part. I don't need a camera to grandstand."

Commissioners will vote on webcasting in two weeks. Allentown and Northampton County are pondering webcasts as well.

Appendix: The Epistle of Percy to the Commissioners

Commissioners,

When the price of broadcasting our meetings on the internet was $15,000, I voted no because I thought it was not necessary. I am even more vociferous in my opposition now that the price of the system has more than doubled to $39,000. This new price is a stripped down version with the new microphones deleted, and other bells and whistles to be added at a later date.

At a time of financial distress such as we are experiencing today, I cannot vote to spend more money on a system that I do not believe is a necessity. In last year’s budget, we were encouraged by fellow commissioners to make major cuts, including freezing wages and personnel cuts. This year’s budget will be even tighter because of the potential State cuts that may be passed on to us as unfunded mandates. It is unconscionable to spend $39,000 on an internet recording of our meetings if some commissioners are going to ask employees to forego pay increases and ask us to get rid of employee positions.

In my opinion, our meetings are open and transparent. The minutes of the meetings are available in a very detailed format. It is not necessary to record the meetings and rebroadcast them on the internet. The recordings will not be live and may have a long lag period before they are posted. Posting the meetings will take away from staff time that is needed for more important work.

Internet broadcasts in my opinion are vanity exhibitions that are best suited for those who are seeking higher office. It is not our responsibility to pay for that. I am also unconvinced of the number of people who will tune in to the “Commissioners Show,” especially since it is a delayed broadcast and they will not see us live. My guess is maybe one or two people, unless it is election year and your opponent wants to collect information on you.

The final nail in the coffin for me is taking money out of the Commissioners Office “Other Specialized Services” line item. That is money we have set aside in case of an emergency such as a law suit against one or more of us, to hire outside legal council in case of conflict with the Solicitors Office, or to pay for other professional help. It is true that we have not had to hire a lawyer since Commissioner Skinner was sued by the Administration, but it is good to have the money available.

In addition, at the end of the year, the unspent money reverts back to the general fund. If we spend $24,000 out of this line item, it will mean that our non-payroll budget expenditures for the year will increase by 20.7%. The Administration is asking departments to hold the line of spending and bring in budgets that are flat. How can we complain those departments, and even suggest cuts, if we increase spending by 20.7% in our own office?

I WILL VOTE NO ON THE INTERNET BROADCASTING SYSTEM, and I encourage you to do the same.

Thanks
Percy