With only Lamont McClure opposed, Northampton County Council last night approved a $16,000 webcasting system for meetings, starting next January. In addition to the livestream, viewers will be able to view portions of a meeting, using the agenda as an index.IT Director Al Jordan describes the system: "What it's going to entail is two cameras; one camera will focus on the speaker, the other camera will focus on the Council members in general, showing everyone at once. The person that's speaking shall be pictured in a small frame inside the overall picture. ...
"The package also includes all the bells and whistles that we talked about, which includes posting minutes and agendas and those things online, and using the agenda as an index to the video. So if someone just wants to see a portion of the meeting in reference to a certain topic, they can just go ahead and skip to that portion.
"We will be able to stream the meeting live and also maintain an archive of previous meetings."
Is this popular? Will people want to view the webcasts? Council member Michael Dowd, a proponent of webcasting, mentioned the experience of Easton School District. "I can't give you a number, but The Express Times or Morning Call reported on that, and the initial number was kind of startling, far exceeding what I thought it would be." Council member John Cusick, another webcasting advocate, spoke with two counties - Chester and Allegheny - that already produce webcasts. "From their experience, how many people watch it depends on what's on the agenda."
The Northampton County Bulldog, Ron Angle, volunteered to find a few sponsors for the webcast to help pay the bill. "I am convinced I will raise the $16,000."
Lamont McClure, insisting "I'm not camera shy and it's because I'm so pretty," is nevertheless opposed to webcasts because the $19,000 outlay depletes Council's contingency fund. That has been used to support food banks, pre-school at a YMCA and Nazareth's skate park. "We're going to reduce the contingency fund by $16,000, and in a way that doesn't help people."
Cusick disagreed with McClure. "It's not our money. It's taxpayers' money, and I think what we're doing is spending it to give the citizens an opportunity to see their government at work."
Sometime in January, I'll be able to put my flipcam to bed.
Blogger's Note: Sarah Cassi's Express Times report is here.
22 comments:
What if some citizens do not want to be filmed when in front of Council. I thimk htat is unfair to them just for the sake of some blogger fanatics.
Also they are forced to identify themselves and their address. This may discourage some folks who fear the impulsive rage of some unbalanced people viewing the webcast.
Now let's get Lehigh County onboard, as well as Allentown!
Anonymous said...
What if some citizens do not want to be filmed when in front of Council. I thimk htat is unfair to them just for the sake of some blogger fanatics.
Also they are forced to identify themselves and their address. This may discourage some folks who fear the impulsive rage of some unbalanced people viewing the webcast.
3:27 AM
This post raises valid concerns but even today and for two centuries and more, print reporters have included name and address while covering govt. meetings. Often this information was found in the next day's edition for all to see. Webcasting is not for some lunatic fringe but to showcase the conduct of elected officials
for those unable to attend govt. meetings, whether for health, work, family, or other valid reasons.
As far as citizens on camera.. The camera need not be pointed at them. Harrisburg and other's have MUTE buttons. These could be used when name and address are given. However these have been always been included in the minutes anyway. Privacy is not what a public meeting is about.
As far as Norco webcasting theirs and Allentown not...Have your people call my people..PLEASE!
"What if some citizens do not want to be filmed when in front of Council."
Simple. Don't show up in public if you don't want to be viewed in public.
That, or wear a burka.
Or better still, demand a backroom meeting in a smoke filled room to satisfy your desire for secrecy from the public.
The pulic's right to know is paramount to someone's desire for privacy during a public meeting. That sounds like a convenient excuse, from a pol, to justify keeping the public in the dark,
AWESOME> I like the new Council already....
McClure is a relic.
Why would someone not want to appear on a webcast after they took the time to appear in a public forum and voice an opinion. On the contrary, every time I've been to a COunty Council meeting, it's the opposite. Usually, the constituents that voice opinions are frustrated about something and even more frustrated when McHale and the rest of the troglodytes brush them off. I think the common people would love for the public to hear what their concerns, problems, and complaints are....usually those people are really upset! That's how things get solved. Now maybe if the person has committed a crime of is in the Witness Protection Program, then they shouldn't go on webcam but they shouldn't be voicing their opinion either.
Contrary to what most of yout probably think, I rarely speak at a council meeting. I figure I can usually say what I need to say here. But last night, I spoke.
It's almost impossible to find a way into the people's building unless you're in the know. And during council nights, out government clevelry locks the reglar access point and makes everyone come in thru a side door. It's confusing.
The hills outside are strewn with the corpses of those who never made it.
Assuming you decide to come to a council meeting, and surive long enough to find your way inside the building, the very first thing that confronts you are two deputies. Most of the time, they just wave you ahead, but other times, they search. They can't seem to make up their minds.
I think a camera is nothing to anyone who has survived all these obstacles.
There is no ordinance authorizing deputies to search people, by the way. There is a court order, but that applies to judges when court is in session. When they are gone, no one should be subjected to the indignity of a search. It has a chilling effect on the public's right to participate in its own government. So far as I know, NC is the only government locally that searches people before meetings.
Well said.
Angle's gonna need some Xanax.
Regular people are not the attention whores that populate the blogesphere.
Do not point a camera at the citizens like Big Brother.
People have every right to see the union hacks as they come in front of council demanding OT for football game security and demanding that others be fired. It's very enlightening. It's also very enlightening to see how how some council members (one of whom just lost his bid for re-election) pander to them. The publc has a right to know what is said at a public meeting.
You will know what is said at meetings with a camera pointed at County Council. You will hear everything. There is no need for a camera on citizens.
Ohare makes obvious this is more about trying to repress people who dare oppose the Vengeful Stoffa Regime than transparency.
I stand by the assertion though while legal it will have a chilling effect on decent honest people.
The only winners are the Drama Queens and blogesphere whores who will demad to speak for hours in order to sate their misplaced egomania. Then there are those who in their demented way will post pictures and video on the web while harrassing and intimidating all they oppose.
Today it is the sheriffs, tomorrow it could be you.
Awww. The poor wittle deputies might really piss off the taxpayers if the people paying the bills find out just hw much they milk the system. Ann McHales's pumping money into the State Theatre last year, even more than they asked for, will be noticed. Lamont McClure's attempt to fund a Y in Lehigh County might raise a few eyebrows.
We need more government transparency, and the "citizens" eho speak during courtesy of the floor are almost always people looking for a buck.
Emmaus has been webcasting their council meetings for years. There has been absolutely no negative impact on people being willing to speak. On the contrary, it's been fantastic.
The Banker
Baker, you patehetic hack. How far up ohares ass do you live
The typical argument of a Long Dem who has lost - personal attacks.
Any ciotizen who cares enough about an issue to make a trip to Council and who feels strongly enough to speak out will be empowered by a webcast of his attempt to effect change. The only persons who have any concerns are the ones on the other side of the dais, who create a false issue to hamper the public's right to know. Any citizen who desires to address council is required by the Sunshine Act to both identify himself and state where he resides. Everyone has a right to know.
But this has already passed 8 -1, so this argument is academic. If you felt that strongly, you should have gone to council and addressed them. But you'd have to identify yourself. They don't accept anonymous speakers.
"Baker, you patehetic hack. How far up ohares ass do you live"
Deep thought there. It's a shame when facts get in the way.
The Banker
The enforcers of the Vengeful Stoffa Regime!
I still want to know... Who is going to do Hair & Makeup??????
Post a Comment