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
33 comments:
This is such BS and so obvious that the issue is that they don't want to be watched and thus critiqued, quoted,watched, etc... Can you imagine if we had McHale on tape saying, "Nice guys finish last"? It's a lot more powerful watching someone say something stupid than having it repeated in print. If Lehigh Co doesn't want webcasting, as professional and reputable as they are, you can imagine how resistant the Little Rascals from Walla Walla on Norco Council will be to the same idea. But how can LeCo not want webcasts when they obviously built their Chambers to look exactly like the old WHAT'S MY LINE set? Does Don Cunningham write his name on a blackboard when he attends meetings?
Here are two examples of why politicians vote against webcasts. One is a city council meeting and the other a state senate meeting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YhPBdzbNK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzJhTfQiMA
Bernie,
If people took the time to sit in on local government meetings they would see for themselves how far we have fallen from the ideal of well informed and well intentioned citizens serving the greater good of their community. Many times I found myself in a near fetal position in my chair in Allentown’s chamber. Sadly the pompous bumblings and total incompetence seems to have spread to the county building.
Scott Armstrong
Who solicited the bids for this system????
)ther governmental entities (Emmaus and Lower Mac) are doing it for a small fraction of the $39,000 quote the county received, and they work just fine.
That they would even consider that price has me wondering how many other overpriced county contracts are out there.
While I hate overbearing laws, I'd have no problem with a state law requiring municipalities and counties to webcast. Get it done and get that sunshine in.
The Banker
I think the LC Commissioners should start by posting agendas and minutes on their website before even thinking about webcasting. How are those of use at home going to follow along?
I can appreciate the concern about cost. Right now, given the choice of delivering human services at $39,000 to people who need it in the worst economic climate my generation has seen or buying the equipment necessary to webcast, I'm inclined to say deliver the services. That said, there are a couple of alternatives to using taxpayer dollars:
1) Solicite citizen volunteers who would bring in their own camera/microphone to record the meeting. Immediately upload the video to the internet after the meeting. This is not the best option, but it could work.
2) Turn to political contributors, businesses and private individuals for contributions. If 39 contributors gave $1,000 in exchange for the graditude of the public, I'm willing to bet this could be cobbled together. Also, ask the Morning Call to reserve a full page ad in a Sunday paper to recognize each of these good contributors. I know I could not afford to give $1000, but I'd find a way to contribute $250 to the cause.
I think the second option could be done. It would require the commissioners to work together across party lines (easily accomplished with these folks) and would help to flush out whether or not transparency is what they fear, or the use of taxpayer dollars to buy fancy equipment.
PS: there will be political fodder in this story. "In light of a HUGE budget deficit, Dean Browning wanted to buy fancy video equipment rather than cut costs. so much for fiscal responsibility." Or, "what does Percy Daugherty have to fear?".
ha, ha, ha.... Bernie, how many $1,000's did you spend to webcast this?
I'm so naive about these things. I thought a flip cam & a YouTube account ought to 'git er' dun', no? Why do they always think it takes a bag of money?
Here's something amazing.. a quick search on YouTube indicates there are currently about 23,000 of these already posted
OH may I note, the City Of Allentown already has a channel on YouTube .. or is that only for Ed's use?
What am I not getting?
Anon 7:34, Agendas are posted. Incredibly, minutes are not. This is an outraeous thumb of the nose at the public. LC offices are only open until 4 PM on weekdays. How they hell is the public supposed to find time to lok at them? That's why I don't for a second believe that LC Comm'rs desire to see more transparency. It's a shame bc they actually are afairly collegial body, but they are dead wrong on this one.
Anon 8:29, You have an excellent idea. Do you think Cityline or Stellar or Butz would kick in for something like this, which cannot benefit them in any way? If they did, that would say something about them.
Thought of the day.. "If you can't bedazzle em' with brilliance, baffle them with BS"
LVCI, I'm with you. I see no reasdon why, until this larger package is decided, LC Commrs can't do a simple webcast like Emmaus. Last night, CSI stated that was possible. The version they propose has a few bells and whistles. 1) There are three cameras,not one, and they can tilt, turn and zoom. 2) They are voice activated - the only operation required is the push of a button at the end of the meeting. 3) Quality is much better. 4) There is storage caability.
Browning is pursuing some changes to make it least expensive. But let me point out that a one time $39k cost that benefits the public is nothing in a county w/ a $330 million budget.
The more eyes that look at something, the more likely the final product will be right. if people watch meetings, they can often see things commissioners themselves may miss.
LVCI, Allentown's Youtube channel has been nothing but flattering Pawlowski videos.
"Do you think Cityline or Stellar or Butz would kick in for something like this, which cannot benefit them in any way?"
If the Morning Call comes to the table to write a story about corporate citizen's making such a generous contribution to their community and follows it up with a full page ad, my guess is that they could be convinced. At the beginning and end of every webcast for the next 3 years, offer to have the chair thank the companies and display their logo before and after... why not? Are you so cynical to think that the only reason people give money is so they get something tangible in return? I'm cynical, but come on. Charity happens for a reason.
Local businesses have sometimes donated land or services to local government. I'm not so sure they'd pay for a system that enables the public to keep an eye on things, but I'd love to be wrong about that.
Bernie,
I have attended my share of council and school board meetings and the one observation I will make is that when the audience is larger, the individuals on the board tend to pontificate longer and bore the hell out of everyone -in an effort to impress the crowd and appear smarter.
I can't help but think that if there are cameras at these proceedings that there will be endless speeches which will in essence be political campaigning - all on the taxpayer's dollars.
You are so right, the minutes of the meetings should be posted, but as for the cameras - I think they would be a mistake and a waste of money.
Lynn
Lynn,
Your observation is accurate. When audiences are larger, it's because some controversial issue has sparked public interest and debate. Naturally, politicians will feel a need to explain themselves a little more. Some of it will certaionly be grandstanding.
But in my view, that's all good. We should know what they are thinking.
Look at your argument a moment. Cameras will make meetings longer and result in more grandstanding or pontificating, as you more delicately put it. Therefore, the argument is that we should not allow cameras because they needlessly politicize a public meeting. Under that reasoning, reporters should be banned from meetings. After all, their presence makes it much more likely that officials will start pontificating. Bloggers should go next, especially since we are less accurate. Finally, why not get rid of people altogether? Most of them are ill-informed anyway.
The question is really whether you favor efficiency or democracy. I believe that the more open a government can be, the greater the public confidence in its decisions. I'll agree it's terribly inefficient, but would not have it any other way.
Lynn -
I doubt that you are advocating for people to stay away from attending the meetings in order to keep the politicians from "pontificating".
I tend to find that when one tries to "appear smarter", they often receive the opposite outcome. I'm sure that lesson would be quickly learned.
I'm sure we all agree that more citizen involvement (at all levels) would make for better government. The technology is there to broadcast the meetings, and it should be done now.
Bernie and Anon 12:01,
You both make good points about transparency and citizen involvement - I have in the past seen some elected officials not only behave poorly at meetings but I have seen them say and do CRAZY things that were regretably never reported in the newspapers.
But, the meetings ARE open to the public and I know from experience that the public doesn't usually care enough to attend, I doubt that they will be tuning in enough to justify the price tag...and the almost guaranteed increased length of the meetings. I DO believe that the cameras will help out reporters and bloggers because it will remove the need for them to actually attend those meetings. I'm just not very sure the taxpayers should be footing that bill at this time.
Lynn
Bernie, To clarify in print all nine commissioners are in favor of web casting the meetings. There are legitimate reasons why this will in all likelihood be delayed. Every commissioner and every thoughtful voter is in favor of web casting. One legitimate question is cost. We are elected to properly husband the tax dollars. One can easily argue that 39 k with additional unknown future costs is an outrageous cost when the meetings can be clearly taped as you did. The taping of the meetings can be accomplished at a much lower cost. This issue will be resolved in the near future. I would ask those chomping at the bit to watch the LC Commissioner meetings to hang loose and try to attend live. The taped versions are coming. PS - That is a nice camera you had last night. Consider this. If we pay you $50. a meeting to record the meeting like you did parts last night, at a cost of 40k for the proposed system you could do this for the next 25 years and not cost 40k. Also, I'm looking for someone to record the 14th annual Coplay Town Watch "National Night Out Against Crime" celebration 8/4 from 5:30 to 8PM at the American Club of Coplay Pavilion, 300 Cherry Street, Coplay. You got the job if you desire. This is a volunteer event but we will feed you "free" if you record the event with that neat camera. Let me know.
How is it that Lower Macungie Township can afford webcasting, but Lehigh County can't? Is the County in that much of a financial crisis or that mismanaged?
The Easton Area School Board just started this, and I don't think it's costing them anything. Their inhouse tech guy is doing it, I believe.
Bill,
Your willingness to participate in the wild blogosphere is an indication of some committment to transparency, but the suggestion taht all nine comm'rs favor webcasting is wrong.
During last night's meeting, Comm'r Jones derided the process. "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." That's no ringing endorsement.
Chairman Dougherty was similarly dismissive. "Internet broadcasts in my opinion are vanity exhibitions that are best suited for those who are seeking higher office."
Those are their words and they own them.
Also, LC's track record on open government is hardly impressive. You don't even have the minutes of your own meetings posted online, which is simply ridiculous. Even little boroughs are managing that, but the LV's largest municipal government won't do it.
The only way a citizen can look at those minutes, no matter how well they are formatted, is by taking the hub caps off his car and driving to Allentown, hoping to get there before its ungodly closing time of 4 PM. It's ridiculous and is evidence that you do NOT believe in transparency, despite the protests to the contrary.
Your position, incidentally, is very curious. Initially, you were all for this project, even joining as a cosponsor. Then you suddenly balked at the cost even though the proposed system is much cheaper than the system you liked so much. Given that every Democratic comm'r expressed some reservations, I believe your sudden reversal was political and aimed at Republlicans who are pandering by claiming they will accept no payhike.
Can you set up a webcam and a piece of plywood and do it at a fraction of the cost? Sure, and then you have lousy video and poor sound quality. I did tape some portions byut had to continually play them back to transcrinbe accurately. By the way, I could barely make out a word you were saying when you spoke. With a better system, we would not have that problem.
As for your invitation, I'm usually one of the criminals, but I'll stop by. Coplay is a wonderful town. I'll be there tonight and on Saturday for your annual baseball tournament.
It's a shame the comm'rs won't be meeting there this year. That's more evidence that you do not want to reach out to the people you represent.
I think $39,000 so 250,000 people can watch watch what 9 people are doing with $300,000,000 of the dollars from the 250,000 is a good deal. If they are so strapped for cash, I suggest hoagie sales, bake sales, car washes...most cheerleaders and local high school bands raise more than that for trips and competitions. OR the Morning Call should get in on the action and offer to webcast them, it would drive traffic to their site.
the only way this happens is if everyday people who don't blog (read: us) demand that the webcasts be launched. Watching meetings aren't on the minds of most people. Their jobs, livelihood of their kids and their homes are what keeps them up at night. If you want this to happen, convince everyday people. They are the ones who will convince local gov't to act. right now, you are talking into your echo chamber. That's not to say you are wrong, but it doesn't do a thing to actually make webcasts a reality.
don't try to convince the elected officials: convince the voters.
Good Lord. I'll give 'em $40 for a flip video camera like you have Bernie and they can get someone on the payroll who doesn't do anything all day like ROn Heckman to film the meetings and put it up on Youtube for free until the economy picks up. Case closed.
What is it that these people do that they have to hide? That a camera will destroy the integrity? I don't understand. DO they have orgies or something? These are public meetings.
Democrat Jones is against webcasting the Commissioner Meetings because; A: There is no demand for it. B: It will induce grandstanding C: Informing the public of their proceedings is not a core function of government.
If no one is watching why would anyone grand-stand?
If informing the public of government business is not his job, why is there a sunshine law?
It is hard to follow Rev. Jones' logic. He talks but says nothing.
Commissioner Roman made a thorough and thoughtful case for all the benefits of communicating to the public with modern technology. He sounded like he knew what he was talking about.
I'd like to hear more...when will they be on You Tube again? Oh, that's right, they won't be, if the Jones' of the world have their way.
By the way, where is Cunningham in all of this?
Dr. Dougherty needs to get into the modern age. Does he still use a rotary phone?
I thought he was up for re-election. Doesn't he realize that people need to know what is going on in County government to make a wise decision in the voting booth?
Maybe he should retire and let someone younger run instead. He looks old and tired.
Where is Cunningham? I don't know. He may consider this an issue for comm'rs. He may support it. I will ask him next time I speak to him.
One upon a time, we had to sell hoagies to pay for our kick-butt hockey jerseys that were the envy of the league
We also saved a truckload of money by doing the sewing ourselves (team patches, numbers, nameplates on the back, etc.) as compared to buying the finished product.
Bernie thank you for the show. I knew we could do it cheeper than $39,000.00 We just need the audio figured out and we are in business. Thanks again for posting this !!!!!
Glenn
Glenn, the audio works if you turn up the volume. It was nice to see you and your fellow commissioners. It really is a pleasure. Your legislative body actually is the best I've seen in the LV, and that is in no small part due to Chairman Dougherty, who conducts public meetings with an eye towards including normal citizens. A webcast is really just an extension of the attitude your chair already displays. It is not, as he claims, just some vanity show for those seeking higher office. It could be used against you politically, but that's democracy. Despite the protests to the contrary, I'd say Jones and Dougherty oppose webcasting, even if it were free. They are afraid of its potential for political mischief. But if they think about it, that's really a fear of democracy itself.
Dell computer... $500, Web Cam $40, Web microfone placed in front of a speaker that broadcasts all the mics the commission allready has.. $25... if they wanna go crazy.. JVC video cam that auto uploads to utube.. $500... so everything for $1000 or less to a website they allready have or you tube like the King Ed show ...
Look on Jones' and Dougherty's faces when they have to explain why they won't spend a $1000 bucks to keep them in check???? PRICELESS!!!
Post a Comment