by

January 17, 2013

How ironic that the Transportation Advisory Board requests permission for its members to avoid traveling to meetings.

In a petition scheduled to be presented to Town Council at its Jan. 14 meeting, Transportation Board chair Michael Parker posits that participation in the volunteer board member positions would increase if members didn’t have to actually go to the meetings, but instead could Skype themselves in. Using an electronic tool such as Skype or WebEx would be cost-effective, he says. For whom?

Because there’s this matter of Open Meeting Laws – the reason you never see more than four council members together in a room unless it is an official council meeting – you’d have to find a way for the public to view any Skype session. I’m trying to picture this: On the dais in the Town Hall auditorium, we have a ring of laptops set up for 10 of the 12 members. Two unlucky members would have to attend in person, or members could take turns calling in sick (How does that improve participation?). The cameraman wouldn’t be able to broadcast the images from the laptops, so any citizen wanting to follow what was going on at these virtual meetings would have to travel to Town Hall to sit in the audience.

Who saves money with this arrangement? And if board members can afford a computer and the fee for Skype, why balk at a dollar or two at most for gas? The parking is free.

Do Transportation Board members have such a cliquish view of themselves and such a vaunted opinion of their expertise that to retain cream-of-the-crop members they have to throw in such perks as being able to attend meetings in their jammies or while multitasking on their elliptical trainers?   

Here’s a suggestion: Recruit members sufficiently enthused about transportation issues that they’ll haul themselves off the couch and go to the meetings.

And if the cost of attending an advisory board meeting feels prohibitively expensive to a member, he or she could give up a latte a month. Isn’t that the Chapel Hill Way?  TW

The author, who is a freelance writer, started the Chapel Hill Watch blog in 2009. She lives near the long-awaited Carolina North campus. The weekly Town Council meeting is her favorite TV series.

Tags

, ,

by

January 17, 2013

Comments (1)

Comment Feed

Petition by the Trans Board for remote attendance

One great thing about the communications revolution in the 21st century is the ability to bring together people to interact regardless of geographic location. Tools made possible by communications technology allow government and industry to tap people and resources, so that groups – whether town boards, corporate boards and workgroups or academic classrooms – can be more inclusive of people who might benefit the mission.
The purpose of open meetings laws is to increase and ensure fair participation in government, not limit it. The UNC School of Government weighed in on the use of electronic participation at a September meeting of board members and commissioners, saying that there was nothing in the NC law to prevent electronic participation, either for members or the public. There is no reason any citizen – a home-bound citizen or a board member – should be prevented from electronically attending a meeting due to geographic conflicts given the state of technology.
This petition is not about the desire to duck meetings. It is precisely about supporting the mission of government to serve the people. If the mission is kept at its proper priority over narrow-minded legalism, pragmatic interpretations of laws can occur to the benefit if the citizens.
As an example, I regulated the automotive industry for the Federal government, when the regulations on automotive lighting, which have the force of law, limited the industry to the use of incandescent bulbs. The crafters of the regulations never contemplated LED technology, headlights that could shine around curves or other technology breakthroughs in visibility and conspicuity. Yet, these technologies advanced our mission to improve safety and fuel economy. Our lawyers were thus tasked with re-interpreting some regulations and rewriting others to allow the mission to be accomplished under the law. Yes, there were naysayers, some on legalistic, fundamentalist grounds, but others legitimately concerned that LEDs could be dangerous by blinding drivers to the rear. Therefore, once the policy is set, the important next step is competent implementation, which usually quells the skeptical.
Likewise, in this instance, if there is worry about the degradation of town board meetings by the evils of electronic technology, the policy can be implemented to mitigate those concerns. For example, a quorum of members could still be required to be physically present, so that a critical mass of touchable humans is present in case an interested citizen wants to appear, without closing out other citizens or members who may need to participate telephonically.
Resistance to change is understandable, and not unique to Chapel Hill. What is not understandable is a condescending cheap shot at a board of community volunteers by a blogger who, quite ironically, doesn’t have to “get off the couch” to express an uninformed opinion to thousands. Civility has failed. Or is that the "Chapel Hill way?"

Jeff Runge 123 days ago

Recent Posts

Follow us on Facebook and twitter 300 x 50
Follow CHM On Twitter