BOARD MEETING DATE: November 13, 1998 AGENDA NO. 11
PROPOSAL:
Report of Six-Month Trial Program to Use Tele- or Videoconferencing for Committee Meetings
SYNOPSIS:
At the December 1997 meeting, the Board authorized its committees to experiment with teleconferencing or videoconferencing for a six-month period and report on the results. The trial period began in March 1998, and this letter reports on the usage of teleconferencing and videoconferencing. Overall, the pilot program has successfully demonstrated that use of tele- and videoconferencing is effective ways to participate in Board Committee meetings.
COMMITTEE:
Administrative, October 23, 1998, Recommended for Approval
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Receive and file this report.
2. Continue using tele- and/or videoconferencing.
Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env.
Acting Executive Officer
Background
At the December 12, 1997 meeting, staff reported that amendments to the Brown Act effective January 1, 1998 permit legislative bodies and their standing Committees to meet by teleconference or videoconference, subject to certain limitations. These limitations are that the teleconferencing or videoconferencing be in a location accessible to the public, [ Other provisions of the Brown Act require all meetings to be held in a location accessible to the disabled, and where there is no charge to the public to attend. (Government Code §54961.)] that the public be allowed to comment from any such location, that the agenda identify all locations at which teleconferencing or videoconferencing will occur, and that an agenda be posted at such locations 72 hours before the meeting. (Government Code §54953.)
Report
Beginning in March of this year, Administrative, Mobile Source, and Technology Committees have used videoconferencing for their meetings with Board Member Wilson (and on one occasion, Board Member Paulitz) attending from the remote location. With one exception (one meeting, one person) there has been no public participation at the remote location. Staff believes that the videoconferencing has worked well and should continue. There have been only minor technical problems on two occasions. The table below summarizes the results of the successful six-month pilot use of videoconferencing for some Board Committee meetings.
| Committee | Meeting Date | Offsite Board Member Participants |
Agenda Posted at Offsite Location? | Public Participation |
| Technology | 9-25-98 | Wilson, Paulitz | Yes | No |
| Administrative | 9-18-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Technology | 8-28-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Administrative | 8-28-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Administrative | 7-24-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Technology | 7-17-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Mobile Source | 6-26-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Technology | 6-26-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Administrative | 6-19-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Administrative | 5-22-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Technology | 5-15-98 | cancelled | --- | --- |
| Mobile Source | 4-24-98 | Wilson | Yes | Yes |
| Technology | 4-24-98 | * | Yes | No |
| Administrative | 4-17-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Technology | 3-27-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
| Mobile Source | 3-27-98 | cancelled | --- | --- |
| Administrative | 3-20-98 | Wilson | Yes | No |
*Spvr. Wilson did not attend, but the videoconferencing connection was maintained in the event any member of the public had arrived. None did.
Fiscal Impacts
There are sufficient staff resources to administer the videoconferencing program with existing portable equipment. Staff also will ascertain the cost to equip the Board Conference Room (CC8) with permanent videoconferencing equipment.
Attachments
None
/ / /