council4_vaughan
Member
We implemented this message board a year ago with a commitment to trying it out for a year. Now we are faced with the decision to extend that contract.
The City has provided statistics of who posts on the board and how many views it gets. One may be tempted to say that it doesn't get as much reach as they want, so the message board should be closed. But, I hope my fellow councilmembers disagree with that.
First, we must consider the cost of the board. $648 a year. Councilmember Bulman and I have chosen not to take our stipends ($30 a month each for an annual total of $720). We have done this in part to cover the cost of the message board. So, there really is no budgetary impact.
Staff is not allowed to participate on the board and the board is hosted by a third party. So, this should have little to no impact on staff time either.
The City's write-up for the agenda item indicates that at best 1% of adults in Universal City see a post. You may be tempted to say that is inconsequential, but when you consider the number of people who attend city council meetings or even know about the message board, this is a pretty good accomplishment.
You can also subscribe to the board and receive a copy of the post in your email inbox (which is what I do). I often read it in my email and may not open it on the board. So, I wonder if the view count is understated by that.
But, we must also consider the purpose of the board. Public view is great, but the main point is to allow council to communicate between meetings and discuss matters that may be difficult to do at a council meeting. This allows for the sharing of data prior to a meeting for councilmembers to consider and becomes part of the public record. This is important for minority views on council and for potential brevity in council meetings.
If we used the board to its fullest, we could:
1. Propose (and discuss) future agenda items here (rather than at a council meeting). This would not require an awkward surprise at a council meeting of an idea coming from left field. This is difficult for the person making the request to get consensus. It is also difficult for the other councilmembers who are surprised by an idea and feel the need to explain why they do or don't want that agenda item (which we really shouldn't discuss because it's not on the agenda).
2. Often we are faced with concepts that are not a simple yes or no answer. Being able to discuss them here in full view of the public, allows for a more robust conversation and fact gathering, than trying to do it at a council meeting. Any policy that needs revisions or hashing out, could be done here and fine-tuned for a final discussion at a meeting. This would lead to faster meetings, shortened turn around times on agenda items (as staff can read this too and read the room for the direction council wants on the first try), and better outcomes on the final decision.
3. Without the message board, minority views on council are forced to take up time at council meetings to express their ideas. I have heard proposals to enact time limits on councilmember comments. I fear this will silence minority views. But, I think it could work if we provide an outlet for those minority views (namely a message board like this).
I firmly believe we should continue the message board for another year. We should also make an effort to announce it to the public both on Facebook and in the Gateway.
The City has provided statistics of who posts on the board and how many views it gets. One may be tempted to say that it doesn't get as much reach as they want, so the message board should be closed. But, I hope my fellow councilmembers disagree with that.
First, we must consider the cost of the board. $648 a year. Councilmember Bulman and I have chosen not to take our stipends ($30 a month each for an annual total of $720). We have done this in part to cover the cost of the message board. So, there really is no budgetary impact.
Staff is not allowed to participate on the board and the board is hosted by a third party. So, this should have little to no impact on staff time either.
The City's write-up for the agenda item indicates that at best 1% of adults in Universal City see a post. You may be tempted to say that is inconsequential, but when you consider the number of people who attend city council meetings or even know about the message board, this is a pretty good accomplishment.
You can also subscribe to the board and receive a copy of the post in your email inbox (which is what I do). I often read it in my email and may not open it on the board. So, I wonder if the view count is understated by that.
But, we must also consider the purpose of the board. Public view is great, but the main point is to allow council to communicate between meetings and discuss matters that may be difficult to do at a council meeting. This allows for the sharing of data prior to a meeting for councilmembers to consider and becomes part of the public record. This is important for minority views on council and for potential brevity in council meetings.
If we used the board to its fullest, we could:
1. Propose (and discuss) future agenda items here (rather than at a council meeting). This would not require an awkward surprise at a council meeting of an idea coming from left field. This is difficult for the person making the request to get consensus. It is also difficult for the other councilmembers who are surprised by an idea and feel the need to explain why they do or don't want that agenda item (which we really shouldn't discuss because it's not on the agenda).
2. Often we are faced with concepts that are not a simple yes or no answer. Being able to discuss them here in full view of the public, allows for a more robust conversation and fact gathering, than trying to do it at a council meeting. Any policy that needs revisions or hashing out, could be done here and fine-tuned for a final discussion at a meeting. This would lead to faster meetings, shortened turn around times on agenda items (as staff can read this too and read the room for the direction council wants on the first try), and better outcomes on the final decision.
3. Without the message board, minority views on council are forced to take up time at council meetings to express their ideas. I have heard proposals to enact time limits on councilmember comments. I fear this will silence minority views. But, I think it could work if we provide an outlet for those minority views (namely a message board like this).
I firmly believe we should continue the message board for another year. We should also make an effort to announce it to the public both on Facebook and in the Gateway.