Minutes San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Transcription

1 Minutes San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District PAPERLESS AGENDA CONSORTIUM Central Region Office, Governing Board Room 1990 E. Gettysburg Avenue, Fresno, CA Thursday, May 30, :30 p.m. Meeting held via teleconferencing (VTC) with the Central Region Office (Fresno), the Northern Region Office (Modesto) and the Southern Region Office (Bakersfield). This meeting was webcast. In Attendance: Southern Region Office: Julie Drimakas, Roberta Gafford, Eddie Chavez, Wes Rogers Northern Region Office: Maryanne Mooney, Thao Hill, Steve Herzfeldt, Debbie Seibrecht Central Region Office: Ken Pretzer, Michelle Franco, Yvonne Spence, Alex Aftanas 1. Paperless Agenda Presentation #1 Ms. Spence explained agenda items are placed by department using a SharePoint application. She added the City Manager s office reviews those items and the supporting documents and makes approvals. Ms. Spence stated once all the items have been approved the SharePoint titles are sent to the Clerk s office where staff places the information into an agenda template. She added everything is coordinated so the agenda is ready for the meeting with department heads on Tuesdays at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Spence explained the department heads meet and review the agenda items and make corrections and or revisions. She stated the amended agenda is submitted to the Council President for review and approval. Ms. Spence noted the hard copies are hand carried to the Clerk s office, correlated and prepared for copying. She explained staff will scan the entire agenda packet into PDF form and upload to a shared drive with book marks and prepared for optical character recognition (OCR). She noted the document is condensed to the smallest size possible for web viewing and divided by agenda item. Ms. Spence explained another version of the document is downloaded to a FTP site which Board members use to download to their electronic device. Ms. Spence stated her organization had been utilizing this process for almost one year and within the first eleven weeks the paper production was decreased 1

2 by 58%. She added there are members who continue to use the paper version of the agenda packet. Ms. Drimakas asked the cost of the initial printing budget. Ms. Spence explained the printing budget was approximately $100,000 for the year. Ms. Drimakas confirmed that budget is now reduced by 58%. Ms. Spence responded affirmatively. Ms. Drimakas asked what accommodations were being made for persons still wanting a paper agenda packet. Ms. Spence explained a distribution list is utilized to distribute paper agenda packets. She stated persons will ask to be taken off the distribution list but persons are not encouraged to utilize an electronic device nor discouraged from requesting a paper agenda packet. She added persons are occasionally asked if they would like to try the electronic version. Ms. Drimakas asked the hurdles experienced when implementing he electronic process. Ms. Spence explained the purchase of the electronic devices was difficult because it was thought to give the impression of funds being spent frivolously. She added other hurdles obstacles included the development of the policies of using the electronic device and issues regarding public information. Ms. Drimakas asked if the issues were addressed. Ms. Spence responded affirmatively. Ms. Drimakas asked if the council chambers had wireless access available. Ms. Spence responded affirmatively. Ms. Gafford asked if printing was outsourced. Ms. Spence explained internal staff performed copy and printing services. Mr. Pretzer asked the length of time SharePoint has been utilized to construct the agenda. Ms. Spence explained the program has been utilized for several years. Mr. Pretzer asked if the process was developed by internal staff. Ms. Spence responded affirmatively. 2. Paperless Agenda Presentation #2 Ms. Drimakas reviewed her experience with City of Tehachapi. She explained the electronic agenda packet process was implemented in 2007 utilizing lap tops. She stated council members continued to use the paper packet. Ms. Drimakas noted the reasoning behind their conversion was not only as a cost saving measure but also to provide the public with as much timely documentation as legally possible. She stated the attendance and participation to the council meetings decreased as a result of information being available online. Ms. Drimakas explained Adobe Professional was the program used for the heavily bookmarked document that was ed. She added CivicPlus provided an agenda subscription list as the organization s website provider. She said staff would upload the PDF document to the website utilizing CivicPlus system and then send an to the subscribers informing them the packet was available to download. Ms. Drimakas stated there was a reduction in paper from the preparation process but also from staff printing only what they needed to. She noted the agenda packet is relatively small. Ms. Drimakas explained the City of Bakersfield agenda packet process is all paper driven. She added there are departments that may agenda item 2

3 titles. She stated the budget for outsourcing the printing of the paper packet is $9,000 per year. Ms. Drimakas explained the difficulty is justifying investing in an agenda automation system or purchasing electronic devices. She added there are concerns with possible Brown Act violations and having to amend current policy which does not allow electronic communication within council chambers. Ms. Drimakas noted there is research ongoing to determine what is more fiscally feasible. Ms. Gafford added the City of Bakersfield holds eighteen meetings per year. Ms. Drimakas noted the budget is for the City Council meetings only. Ms. Spence confirmed the City of Bakersfield hold eighteen meetings per year. Ms. Drimakas responded affirmatively adding the City Council holds eighteen meetings per year. Ms. Spence asked if any information is online for the public to view. Ms. Drimakas explained a PDF of the whole document is available without hyperlinks or bookmarks and it is not OCRd. Ms. Spence asked if there is a searchable archive system. Ms. Drimakas stated her organization utilizes the Laserfiche system for the archival of documents. Mr. Pretzer asked if there was a mechanism in the City of Tehachapi for electronic communication from the public should there be a need due to lower participation during the Council meetings. Ms. Drimakas explained the number of questions did increase via telephone and . She added there was also a system in place called Citizen s Request Tracker which has an iphone application associated with it. She noted this service was offered from the website provider CivicPlus. Mr. Pretzer stated he will request CivicPlus representative to make a presentation. Mr. Pretzer requested clarification regarding the difficulty in justifying the cost of investing in an electronic agenda process. Ms. Drimakas explained the amount of staff hours saved in preparing the agenda packet will not affect the overall budget. Mr. Pretzer noted the cost analysis that was presented at the previous meeting is available on the website. Ms. Reyes ed a question asking the length of time from start to finish to complete an agenda packet. Ms. Drimakas explained the staff time is difficult to determine because there are other departments involved. 3. Paperless Agenda Presentation #3 Ms. Franco reviewed the history of the District agenda packet process. She explained the process was very labor intensive including the review process. She presented a flow chart of the agenda packet process prior to implementing the electronic process. She explained the approved packet would be scanned and uploaded to the District website. Ms. Franco stated the Board members carried the heavy binders to the meeting and then all documents would be recycled. Ms. Franco noted the major difference in the electronic process is the packet compilation is performed by the Clerk. She stated communication is key from the 3

4 IT department to Clerk and staff. She explained the Project Coordinators that create the agenda items use a new template for each agenda item. She presented a flow chart of the electronic agenda packet process. Ms. Franco stated the APCO will communicate with the Project Coordinator the agenda item is approved. She added the Project Coordinator will save the finalized item in a shared folder. Ms. Franco explained she will assemble the agenda packet from the different pieces such as the agenda memo, attachment cover pages and the attachments themselves. She stated she utilizes Adobe Acrobat Professional. She added she is the only person authorized to affix the APCO s electronic signature. Ms. Franco explained a staff member will print one copy of each item and review the printed version. She commented errors are easier to catch on a hard copy document. She stated the approved completed item will be ed to the Project Coordinator for final approval. Ms. Franco explained a staff member will compile all the complete agenda items into one PDF with bookmarks and upload to the FTP site for review by the Clerk on an ipad. She stated the final version will be loaded to the FTP site for Board members to download. Ms. Franco noted the naming convention of the files is important to distinguish what has been corrected and also for the order in which the document should be created. She presented print screens of incorrectly and correctly named agenda item files. Ms. Franco stated communication is exceptionally important. Ms. Drimakas asked if an electronic agenda management system was used. Ms. Franco responded the District does not use that type of system at this time. Ms. Gafford asked if the District received compensation for the public packets produced. Ms. Franco explained previously there was a subscriber list used where public members and stake holders would pay an amount for the packets. She noted the subscriber list was no longer used when the information became available online. Ms. Gafford requested clarification on the role of the Project Coordinator. Ms. Franco explained the Project Coordinator is the main contact person for the specific agenda item. Ms. Seibrecht asked if rights are limited to the shared folder where items are saved. Ms. Franco responded affirmatively. Ms. Seibrecht asked what communication is used to indicate the item has been saved. Ms. Franco explained communication is normally made by . Ms. Drimakas asked how the electronic signature was affixed to the items. Ms. Franco explained she affixes the signature like a picture. She noted the signature used is different than any other signature the APCO uses. Ms. Drimakas asked if the electronic signature met regulations if required. Ms. Franco stated the APCO s signature indicates he has reviewed and approved the item. She added there are no regulations for the signature. 4

5 4. Granicus Presentation Maryann Mooney, Regional Sales Executive introduced herself and Thao Hill, VP of Sales. She explained Granicus may be of assistance in implementing the process of an electronic agenda packet. Mr. Hill added his organization assists agencies use less paper for their agenda packets. He presented a timeline of the evolution of Granicus and legislative management from webcasting to touchscreen voting to 1,000 government agencies utilizing Granicus. Mr. Hill reviewed the findings of a survey including agencies printing 6,000 agenda pages per month and overwhelmingly labor intensive. Mr. Hill presented a video illustrating the capabilities of the ilegislate application. He explained the application will display the calendar of items and allow the user to schedule events that may be placed on the organization s website. He continued an event that is selected on the electronic device will show the agenda in a hierarchy structure. The application will display if there is a recommendation and any attachments associated with the agenda item. He noted the application will also automatically syncs agenda data to an ipad so persons may review information and make annotations even when offline. He added the annotated information is only available to the person using the ipad as a security feature. Mr. Hill reviewed the capability of sending the annotations via electronic form. He explained the application has the ability to display notes made from previous meetings. He added video has been incorporated as well. Mr. Hill illustrated how the application allows members of the public to provide comments on agenda items which will be fed directly to the application. He explained the application also allows public to sign up to speak on a specific agenda item. He added the application is capable of displaying demographics of persons providing comments. Mr. Hill summarized the application stating it could provide video, a paperless agenda, providing the citizen feedback functionality. He reviewed the different features including the webcasting transparency, citizen participation, minutes and voting and system and the full agenda automation and departmental work flow. Mr. Pretzer asked if Granicus is integrated with Sire products. Mr. Hill responded affirmatively and illustrated the possibility of integrating current applications with Granicus applications. Mr. Pretzer asked if ilegislate could be used on an users ipad with other government agencies that used Granicus to publish their agendas. Mr. Hill responded affirmatively. Mr. Pretzer asked if ilegislate will streamline the public s user interface to make it easier to navigate. Mr. Hill responded affirmatively. Mr. Pretzer asked if there were Valley sites he could observe. Mr. Herzfeldt responded his site at San Joaquin County could be observed utilizing Granicus and added the City of Stockton also uses Granicus. Mr. Hill added Madera County is another Valley site that could be visited. Mr. Pretzer asked if the Clerk would index the video live during the meeting. Mr. Hill explained the Clerk can index during the meeting or review the video and index 5

6 afterwards. He illustrated the process including the councilmember s and clerk s options. Speaker asked if the system would count a vote of a person that is absent but logged in. Mr. Hill explained the current system does not capture votes according to log in information. He noted the roll call portion will still be handled by the Clerk. 5. Other Business Mr. Pretzer reported there is a link for the Paperless Agenda Consortium on the District s homepage. He added SIRE Technologies is tentatively scheduled to make a presentation at the next meeting. Ms. Gafford asked the Clerks present if there were any concerns from agency attorneys regarding the electronic process including electronic devices specifically regarding public information requests. Ms. Franco responded there were no concerns from the District Council. She added there was a presentation made at the April 2013 meeting and the minutes can be found on the website. Ms. Spence commented there was support from the attorney for the City of Fresno. Ms. Gafford asked if there have been public requests made. Ms. Franco and Ms. Spence both responded they have not received requests for public information from an ipad user. Mr. Pretzer asked they type of information a member of the public may request. Ms. Gafford stated possible requests may be for or annotations made. Mr. Pretzer explained agency is public information regardless of whether it originated from an ipad or desktop PC. He stated the District s Governing Board members do not keep the agendas for more than three months and therefor any annotations they made are gone just like the binders and notes they previously made. Ms. Spence suggested arranging a discussion with the users of the electronic devices regarding of the possible requests that may be received. Mr. Herzfeldt commented his organization deactivates the ports during meetings so there is no electronic communication. Mr. Pretzer extended his appreciation to the attendees and the presenters. 6