From My Bottom Step

It’s no secret to anybody who spends any time at City Hall that they have serious problems with transparency. One of those problems is the often inability of spectators in committee rooms and Council Chamber to hear what’s being said. That’s why I felt compelled to address the Governance Task Force about the issue, and I presume that it’s the reason that the GTF included it in those recommendations that have been proposed.

To it’s credit, the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) also waded in. (see 4th report clause #2)

At it’s 2008/06/09 meeting, City Council resolved:

That, in order to assist persons with hearing disabilities, microphones BE UTILIZED in the Council Chambers during Standing Committee or Advisory Committee meetings; it being noted that while future renovations of the Council Chambers may include the installation of a permanent sound system, a temporary portable system could be rented immediately for this use.

Following that resolution, the 2009/01/12 meeting of the Community and Protective Services Committee (CAPS) received what was identified in it’s agenda as a recommendation:

The Technology Services Division has obtained a quotation for the provision of a temporary sound system for the Council Chambers. The provision of a sound system with 20 microphones for a 5 hour meeting would cost $2,500 and $100.00 for each additional hour. For a meeting requiring 10 microphones the cost would be $2,100 for 5 hours and $100.00 for each additional hour. The Council Chambers would need to made available two hours before each meeting for setup and 1 hour after for dismantling of the portable system. Based on the number of meetings held in the Council Chambers, the rental of a temporary portable sound system is not considered to be an economically feasible option.

The Civic Administration continues to explore a new sound system for the Council Chambers as part of our ongoing assessment of improvements required in the Council Chambers. The Governance Task Force has recommended that Council consider the installation of a new sound system for the Council Chambers, together with new sound systems for the Committee Rooms on the second floor and the Hearings Room on the lower level of City Hall. A new sound system was installed earlier this year in Committee Rooms No.1. It would be more cost effective to wait until we can proceed with the installation of a new sound system in the Council Chambers rather than proceed with the ongoing rental of a portable system.

According to the minutes of that meeting:

The Community and Protective Services Committee (CPSC) reviewed and received an information report from the General Manager of Finance and Corporate Services and Acting City Treasurer with respect to a temporary portable sound system for the Council Chambers; it being noted that the matter of improved sound equipment in the Council Chambers will be further discussed in conjunction with the Governance Task Force recommendations. (2008-C02-00)

In other words, the committee decided not to make a decision.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the committee’s reasoning/intent for a short period of time, but when city administration makes a recommendation is it sufficient for a committee to simply note/file it? Although my presumption is that all of the GTF recommendations will be received/discussed by Council and voted on, is that necessarily carved in stone? I believe that the motion ought properly to have been a DIRECTION that the staff recommendation be dealt with by Council.

As for the quoted price, that’s a lot of lettuce. I’d be curious to know if they simply got one quotation or not and what requirements were specified.

Do you think they should spend the money? As things stand, do Council meetings really meet the legislated requirement that they be public?

The only thing that I’m really sure of is that they could probably purchase the necessary equipment and start streaming meetings out over the Internet a lot more affordably.