E-Democracy builds online public space in the heart of real democracy and community. Our mission is to harness the power of online tools to support participation in public life, strengthen communities, and build democracy.
I agree that lowering or removing the technical and cost barriers to taping meetings would increase the likelihood that it'll actually happen. I am confident that the technology, combined with a clearly documented process (how-to) could become a commodity where the minimal costs would -always- be outweighed by participation, awareness, and accountability. For example, it may cost $200 per agency for a device with audio streaming and archive capabilities, or $500 per agency for a device with HD video streaming and archive capabilities. In reality, these estimated costs could probably be reduced even further.
Additionally, I'd like to expand how the 'value' of meeting archival can be determined. I believe that increasing real-time participation (ie: from 10 to 20) is one valid measure. Yet, there is also significant value in terms of accountability over time. The basis tenets of psychology apply: people behave differently when they know they are being observed.
In my experience, small public agencies (ie: public charter schools) can operate 'in public' legally-speaking, with maybe 3 guests in the room (who may or may not understand Board procedures or the complex environment in which an agency operates). I've seen ethically questionable, if not flat-out illegal decisions be made at such meetings. I've also seen agendas changed at the last minute and meeting minutes tampered with and not accurately reflective of meeting discussions, actions, or outcomes. Audio or video recordings could help prevent that.
Having audio/video available for archive online increases the likelihood that decisions made by public agency officials are made in a more public setting overall, even if the number of participants on hand during the meeting are minimal. The potential audience post-meeting becomes much larger. Accountability is ensured (well, more likely). The post-meeting audience can play a valuable role by ensuring agencies did/do follow proper procedure - something that smaller agencies are not held to as strictly as larger agencies, simply due to a lack of 'eyeballs'.
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Steven Clift <<email obscured>> wrote:
> I have related questions - for those on LocalLabs, what is the > cheapest technical infrastructure to digitally record and webcast > meetings? > > For those on the Public Meetings online working group, what are some > examples of governments that have brought webcasting or simple digital > audio recording down the deepest into a local government? I believe > San Francisco and Oregon require all meetings to be recorded. > > For context, the other day I was a guest at my local neighborhood > council meeting. They were considering ways to improve participation. > What really small public meetings need is a device that sits in the > middle of a table that gets everyone in one simply wide-screen video > and OK audio that is understandable most of the time. I didn't suggest > it because, but I did suggest have a teleconference-based special > input meeting for their strategic plan as a participation option that > could reach people universally. > > Before LiveStream and UStream, I actually worked on a pilot - > http://dowire.org/wiki/Democaster - for the UK government to cobble to > together free and open source tools to enable audio webcasting live > and on-demand with webcam slide show. The premise was that if it cost > almost nothing to webcast public meetings right down to the Parish > level, it might actually happen. The "Democaster" tech actually > worked, but to webcast you had to use Winamp with a plug-in and > another tool to upload pictures. Phase two envisioned a > telephone-based recording option. > > What it really needed is what the companies above have - a Flash-based > broadcasting studio. I still think an audio oriented tool or sub-tool > would be quite useful if you want to promote more universal access the > meeting recordings. The open question is does "doubling" turn-out from > 10 in the room to 20 overall justify the effort involved? > > > Steven Clift - http://stevenclift.com > Executive Director - http://E-Democracy.Org > Follow me - http://twitter.com/democracy > New Tel: +1.612.234.7072 > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 2:39 PM, Ryan Wold <<email obscured>> wrote: > > George, > > > > Welcome. I stumbled across your OpenMeetings site maybe last week or so. > > After reading your Onward State article, I'm interested in dialogging > more > > about your nonprofit. > > > > At the cross-section of local government and technology, public meetings > are > > a perfect fit. I've got a proposal developed but on the shelf to pursue > > meeting videos for many local public agencies that otherwise can't swing > it > > at this time. I'm seeking HD cameras and partnerships with 3 college > > journalism/film departments to record all public meetings for posting to > > YouTube/Vimeo/UsStream, etc. > > > > You seem to have lots of detailed experience in the area, and I'm > interested > > to hear about your experiences. I see in your workflow, you have good > tips > > on post-production. I've been thinking in terms of raw footage for now, > > though I may need to re-think that. > > > > On a separate note, in California, the Bagley-Keene Act allows the > > video-recording of most public meetings as long as it does not serve as a > > disruption. > > > > To the group: Who else is works in this space or is interested in public > > meeting video? > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 12:16 PM, George Chriss < > <email obscured>>wrote: > > > >> [Cross-posting to locallabs] > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I'm a technologist/developer helping bridge the worlds of open video and > >> governance -- I'm most known for OpenMeetings.org, and to a lesser > extent > >> Open Video Productions, L.L.C. In a nutshell, I'm a professional > meeting > >> crasher. > >> More info: http://bit.ly/9zlN0b > >> > >> My biggest tech challenges: http://blog.openmeetings.org/ > >> > >> I joined this group to discover a set of best practices that could be > >> integrated with video (e.g., agenda integration and standardization of > >> meeting > >> announcements) and to find others interested in working together in this > >> space. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> George > >> > >> > >> George Chriss > >> State College > >> Info about George Chriss: > >> http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/7ei5BGNPusRldwuoI81gzO > >> > >> View all messages on this topic at: > >> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/23AUZ7CKRC7zDENsx5cQTM > >> ----------------------------------------- > >> To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > >> Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > >> To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > >> in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > >> > >> More information about LocalLabs - Technology Development for Local > >> Transparency and Participation: > >> http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/locallabs > >> > >> E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > >> ----------------------------------------- > >> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Ryan Wold > > > > Ryan Wold > > Downtown, Vacaville > > Info about Ryan Wold: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/6X1Yh71PpO2hmKqspQLwZY > > > > View all messages on this topic at: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4yR11ExRIsr8NdtWiKiswi > > ----------------------------------------- > > To post, e-mail: publicmeetings@forums.e-democracy.org > > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > > in subject, then send to: publicmeetings@forums.e-democracy.org > > > > More information about P3: Public Meetings - Open Standard and Prototype > Technical Working Group: > > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/publicmeetings > > > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > > ----------------------------------------- > > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net > > > > Steven Clift > Ericsson, Minneapolis > Info about Steven Clift: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/stevenclift > > View all messages on this topic at: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/cjYZiKFZKPjZPxHCpLUGW > ----------------------------------------- > To post, e-mail: <email obscured> > Use "Reply-to-All" via e-mail to post publicly. > To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on" > in subject, then send to: <email obscured> > > More information about LocalLabs - Technology Development for Local > Transparency and Participation: > http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/locallabs > > E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules > ----------------------------------------- > Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net >
This caught my eye because here, in City of Los Angeles, I work with our officially-recognized neighborhood councils on land use issues. While many cities have councils, not many cities formally bring them into city government - much less let them almost totally self-determine as here. These are elected councils, by the way; with no pay, and no formal authority, they are advisory to policymakers.
As we have 91 now, spanning the entire gamut of wealth and organization capacity, it's an interesting opportunity to see how innovations bubble up. And one of the innovations that has not bubbled up is recorded public meetings (in video or audio). Regularly I troll the websites for such innovations, and of the 91 local councils, only two make meeting audio available. (About 10 have no website at all.)
Ryan says: > The basis tenets of psychology apply: people > behave differently when they know they are being observed.
Here in Calif, we have had that Calif. Bagley-Keene Act law tested. Activists brought in the video camera to embarrass one of the local councils into conducting meetings that would be open, more professional and less-imperious, and posted those videos to Youtube. You'll see a representative example here:
The creative response by the local council board would have been to steal the thunder and create its own Youtube channel for its meeting videos. But it took the opposite tack, and went on the attack. The activist was supported in her ability to record the meetings, and the local council suffered a PR black eye.
Ryan also says: > I've also seen agendas > changed at the last minute and meeting minutes tampered with and not > accurately reflective of meeting discussions, actions, or outcomes. Audio > or video recordings could help prevent that.
My experience is that our local councils are aware of our open meetings law, and I've not seen it directly contravened. But the stakes are low, and not many people are watching. More problematic are the serious decision-making bodies, City Councils, which may also not be well-watched, but where big decisions are made.
In Beverly Hills, two large projects in recent years went to referenda, one because City Council improperly noticed the meeting where a basked of land use variances were under consideration. The city was sued and lost in court on the notification issue. It then re-voted. Local homeowners orgs capitalized on the greater public awareness, got the signatures, and took to voters a referendum on the second variances decision. (Losing the referendum by .1%!) So it's not the small-time councils but the big bodies that bear watching, IMO.
The value is there for local bodies, though. There is the potential post-meeting audience, as Steve said. There IS added value in terms of ensuring the integrity of the process. To that I'd add 'legacy' value: the institutional history of a local organization. For most of our local councils, there is not much history; the website is a snapshot in time sans past actions, accomplishments, or even meeting minutes.
Steve writes: > I still think an audio oriented tool or sub-tool > would be quite useful if you want to promote more universal access the > meeting recordings.
Why is a special tool necessary when most recorders make an MP3 or a WAV file? And why the significant cost ($200+)? As I noted, at least a couple of our local councils do make audio available. Their translation costs as much as that.
I suspect that the greater hurdle exists on the meeting side, where the process (mics and capture) needs to be worked out, rather than the server-side. A number of our councils already use mics & PA so it's low-hanging fruit to generate the audio file. My question is whether getting that recording into a usable transcript for the site would be as workable, as Miles mentioned. He noted the Granicus software-as-a-service offering that keys video to agenda/minute items, which Beverly Hills uses and it is convenient. An option for audio files where Granicus is not available (City of LA, which does IT in-house, for now) is marking the audio track for click-through by item. Also somewhat time-intensive.
> The open question is does "doubling" turn-out from 10 in the room to 20 overall justify the effort involved?
Well, that's a good question. Sounds like we're going to the same local council meetings, Steve.
Mark Elliot, Editor Tribuni-Plebis.com <email obscured> 310-271-7330
> George, > > Welcome. I stumbled across your OpenMeetings site maybe last week or so. > After reading your Onward State article, I'm interested in dialogging more > about your nonprofit. > > At the cross-section of local government and technology, public meetings are > a perfect fit. I've got a proposal developed but on the shelf to pursue > meeting videos for many local public agencies that otherwise can't swing it > at this time. I'm seeking HD cameras and partnerships with 3 college > journalism/film departments to record all public meetings for posting to > YouTube/Vimeo/UsStream, etc. > > You seem to have lots of detailed experience in the area, and I'm interested > to hear about your experiences. I see in your workflow, you have good tips > on post-production. I've been thinking in terms of raw footage for now, > though I may need to re-think that. > > On a separate note, in California, the Bagley-Keene Act allows the > video-recording of most public meetings as long as it does not serve as a > disruption. > > To the group: Who else is works in this space or is interested in public > meeting video?