Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-12-15 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 15, 2003 CMR: 546:03 OFF-SITE TELEPHONE PARTICIPATION IN MEETINGS -NOVEMBER 12, 2003 RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL Staff and the Policy and Services Committee recommend that Council adopt guidelines for off-site telephone participation in Council meetings. COMMITTEE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Policy and Services Committee voted 3-0 to accept staff’s recommendation to adopt guidelines for off-site telephone participation in Council meetings. The Committee added two amendments to the recommendation. The first amendment prohibits the use of cellular telephones during teleconferenced meetings. The second amendment requires the City Clerk’s Office to provide Council with a quarterly report detailing the costs associated with any teleconferenced meetings occurring within the reporting period. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1" CMR 496:03 PREPARED BY: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CHRIS MUU:~NSEN Assistant to the City Manager EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:546:03 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 City Manager’s Report TO:ttONORAJ~LE CITY COUNCIL ATTN:POLICY ANI) SERVICES COMMITTEE FROM:CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER DATE:NOVEMBER 12, 2003 CMR:496:03 SUBJECT: OFF-SITE TELEPttONE PARTICIPATION IN COUNCIL I~EETINGS RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Committee recommend that Council adopt guidelines for off-site telephone participation in Council meetings. BACKGROUND During the August 4, 2003, Council meeting, Council referred the issue of off-site participation in Council meetings to the Policy and Services Committee. The referral directs the Policy and Services Co_mmittee to consider a new po!icy, which woutd provide ffaidelh-aes detailing the procedure for successful teleconferenced meetings. DISCUSSION Staff determined that since January 1, 2000, there have been 34 occasions where Counci! Members have participated in meetings via teleconferencing. During the last four years, the remote locations ranged from Roseville, CA to Washin~on_ D.C. to S~dton, South Africa. A total of nine different Council Members have participated in off-site meetings. The following table illustrates off-site participation by Council Members from January 2000 to date: 2000 200i 2002 Council Members ! 7 2 II Teleconferenced11 Meetings 17~, CIvI~R:496:03 ’Page 1 of 4 000 9 3 Total 2000-2003 12 34 There is a cost associated with off-site participation in Council meetings. The costs include purchasing teleconferencing equipment; staff time for preparation and take doom of the telecommunications gear; staff time for coordinating with off-site hotel; phone charges; and overnight mailing costs for the delivery of Council packets. The initial cost is for the teleconferencing equipment itself. These costs reflect the different teleconferencing solutions that exist in different rooms. In the Council Chambers, a call is typically placed to the telephone at the City Clerk’s position, then patched into the speaker system. In the Counci! Conference Room, calls are placed directly to the Polycom speakerphone. The cost of a Polycon speakerphone ranges from $500-$2,000. These costs have already been incurred by the City.. Specialized staff from the Information Technology Division is needed to manage any technical challenges that might result during a teleconferenced phone call. The amount of staff time required during a meeting varies from 5 minutes up to 3-4 hours. The wide range in time is due to the specific requirements related to a particular meeting. Sometimes staff is only requested to set up a basic speakerphone. Other times, staff is requested to establish the phone call and remain on stand-by for the duration of the meeting. Historically, the phone charges related to off-site participation in public meetings have not been tracked. The costs can .vary greatly depending on the duration and location of the call. Other associated costs include mailing charges for the overnight delivery of Council Packets. The typical costs for this ranges anywhere from $40 to $ !00 depending on the distance "the package needs to be mailed. A comparative survey was conducted to examine the frequency that off-site meetings occur in neighboring jurisdictions. The cities included in this study were Mountain View, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and East Palo Alto. Of the five cities surveyed, two (Mountain View and Santa Clara) do not hold teleconferenced meetings. The remaining three cities each had a limited number of teleconferenced meetings. The chart below details the number of meetings, the reporting time period, and the number of council members who participated from remote locations. Teleconferenced Meetin__.s Time period Council Members Mtn. View 0 N/A Menlo Park 2 2.5 yrs. SuImyvale 2 yrs. 2 Santa Clara 0 N/A E. Palo Alto 2-3 4 yrs. N/A 2 2 ClVfR:496:03 Page 2 of 4 Although no specific dollar amounts were provided by these cities, each of them experienced the sinailar costs associated with teleconferenced meetings including: acquisition of teleconferencing equipment, staff time to set-up and take down the equipment, and toll phone charges. Menlo Park, Sulmyvale and East Palo Alto rely on the Brown Act to describe the legal requirements that must be met. None of these cities have written administrative guidelines. Currently, the City of Palo Alto does not have written guidelines. Palo Alto staff also relies on the Brown Act for guidance related to teleconferenced meetings. The Brown Act requirements for teleconferenced meetings are: 1. Each teleconference location must be specified on the agenda. 2. The agenda must be posted at each teleconference location for at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, in a location that is accessible to the public 24 hours per day. 3. The teleconference !ocation must be open and accessible to the public. The public must be able to hear and participate in the meeting fiom the location. 4. The teleconference location must be accessible to persons with disabilities. 5. All votes taken during a meeting where a member is teleconferencing must be by roll call. In order to establish a clear and effective procedure staff would like to recommend that the following steps be taken prior to a teleconferenced meeting: 1.One-week advance ~vritten notice must be given by the Council Member to the City Clerk’s office; the notice must include the address at which the teleconferenced " meeting will occur, the address the Council packet should be mailed to, who is to initiate the phone call to establish the teleconference connection, and the phone number of the teleconference location. 2. The Council Member is responsible for posting the Council agenda in the remote location, or having the agenda posted by somebody at the !ocation and confirming that posting has occurred. The City Clerk will assist, if necessary, by faxing or mailing the agenda to whatever address or fax number the Council Member requests; however, it is the Council Member’s responsibility to ensure that the agenda arrives and is posted. If the Council Member will need the assistance, of the City Clerk in delivery of the agenda, the fax number or address must be included in the one-week. advance written notice above. 3. The Council Member must ensure that the location will be publicly accessible while the meeting is in progess. 4. The Council Member must state at the beginning of the Council meeting that the 72- hour posting requirement was met at the location and that the location is publicly accessible, and must describe the location. CMR:496:03 Page 3 of 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed policy, if approved, is consistent with existing City policies. ENWIRONMENTAL REVIEW This staff report does not represent a project under the California Environmenta! Quality Act (CEQa). PREPARED BY: CHRIS MOGEVNSEN Assistant to the City Manager CITY CLERK APPROVAL: DONNA ROGERS City Clerk CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:V~~. ~ ~,@ EMXL n ,X SO Assistant City Manager CITY ATTORNEY APPROVAL: Interim City Attorney CMR:496:03 Page 4 of 4