School District Superintendent Searches

When good governance demands confidentiality

In an editorial, The Dallas Morning News calls for school districts to publicly release the names of candidates it is considering to fill the position of superintendent. The News says there are 40 school districts statewide searching for a new superintendent and most will name only a single finalist. After the public has a suitable opportunity to review the finalist, the school board offers him or her the job, assuming the public reaction is favorable. The News wants more:

"Taxpayers deserve a better sense of the process and the chance to hold their elected leaders accountable. ... We urge these school boards to show real leadership and publicly disclose a short list of superintendent finalists before they make their hire."

Good in theory, terrible in practice. The trouble with this was identified in the very first sentence of the News' editorial: "Few job seekers relish going public with their employment prospects."

If you work at Circuit City, it's unlikely that your boss is going to find out when you apply for a job at Best Buy. If you get the job, you turn in your resignation at Circuit City. If you don't get it, you haven't ruined your relationships at Circuit City. But if Best Buy blabs and then doesn't offer you a job, you could be screwed back at Circuit City.

Likewise, if it becomes known that a superintendent at a small school district is applying for the open position at a larger school district, he risks ruining his relationship with his current school board, administrators, teachers, parents and students. Given that many candidates apply and only one is given the job, the result of the open and transparent system the News calls for would be turmoil at dozens of school districts for every hire somewhere else. To avoid that, if candidates knew their names would be released, the best candidates wouldn't even apply.

In short, the News' desire for a "fully transparent process" is laudable, but naive. It wouldn't serve the interests of the job seekers, the school districts or the public well.

SeeClickFix

iBurgh Now. iCOR later?

Pittsburgh is on the cutting edge of cities using technology to improve city services. Its new iPhone app received a lot of good press this week (hat tip to former Richardson city council member Pris Hayes, who continues to have "fresh ideas"). According to the story, the iPhone app "lets iPhone owners snap a picture of their favorite eyesore or attractive nuisance, attach a quick note, and send the geotagged information to the city's 311 operators."

We can only hope that Richardson, the city that bills itself as "Telecom Corridor," won't be too far behind Pittsburgh, the 19th century Steeltown. But you don't have to go as far as Pittsburgh to find cities that "get it." Even Dallas has an online app for reporting potholes. The Dallas Morning News features it on various blogs as a way for Dallas residents to "report civic problems such as potholes, graffiti, broken street lights and vandalized playgrounds in Dallas." The DMN claims that "The Dallas Public Works Department -- and anyone else who requests it -- will be notified of the problem by e-mail." It's SeeClickFix and it's independent of both the city of Dallas and the DMN, but, remarkably, neither lets that get in the way of taking advantage of a good idea.

Maybe the city of Richardson also is subscribed to SeeClickFix reports for Richardson, but if so, I can't find any evidence of on the city's Web site. There are various pages giving phone numbers or email addresses for reporting everything from barking dogs to bright lights shining on residential property, but it's all so 20th century. What does SeeClickFix have going for it that the city of Richardson's Web site does not? It has a map that pinpoints all the reports of problems. It has the facility for residents to track the reports and see what corrective action, if any, has been taken. It has the facility to allow other residents to review and chime in on the complaints ("me, too" can carry weight sometimes).

Come on, Richardson. You finally got around to streaming video of city council meetings. How about committing to subscribe to SeeClickFix problem reports and following up with status updates on corrective action?

Routh Creek Parkway

"They paved paradise and put up a parking lot."
-- Joni Mitchell

Ian McCann, in The Dallas Morning News' Richardson blog, reports on the ribbon cutting for Richardson's Routh Creek Parkway, a new road serving the new Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas headquarters. Two paragraphs stood out:

"Richardson's newest street opened Thursday morning after a ribbon cutting ceremony in the Spring Creek Nature Area.

...

'This is in place because of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas,' Richardson Mayor Gary Slagel said. 'They could have moved anywhere, but they didn't. You never want to lose something you already have.'"

The city gets my nomination for today's award for unintended irony. First, for holding a new road's ribbon cutting ceremony in a nature preserve. Second, for the mayor saying, "You never want to lose something you already have."

Richardson Water Rates

Do the rates promote conservation?

At Monday's Richardson city council meeting, resident David Chenoweth suggested (Section 5, Part 3, beginning about 28:30) that the city's water rates do not promote conservation. Does he have a point? I think so, at least enough of a point that someone at city hall ought to review the situation and decide just what we're trying to accomplish with the rates. According to the city's Web site, the water rates are:

Minimum $7.00 plus per each 1,000 gallons consumed

$2.95 for 1,000-11,000 gallons
$3.19 for 11,001-20,000 gallons
$3.33 for 20,001-40,000 gallons
$3.87 for 40,001-60,000 gallons
$4.05 for 60,001 and over

At first glance, it looks progressive, that is, the bigger consumers of water pay higher rates. But David Chenoweth pointed out that that $7.00 minimum charge skews things quite a bit. For example, if you conserve and use only the barest minimum of water for a month, say 1,000 gallons, you'll pay $9.95 for that 1,000 gallons. Say your neighbor uses four times as much water as you, 4,000 gallons. His total bill will be only twice as big as yours, a total of $18.80. That's only $4.70 per 1,000 gallons, less than half your effective rate of $9.95 per 1,000 gallons. For even bigger consumers of water, that $7.00 minimum charge gets spread over many more gallons, bringing their effective rate per 1,000 gallons ever lower. Eventually, at 35,000 gallons usage, it bottoms out at $3.37 per 1,000 gallons (remember, the extreme conserver paid $9.95 per 1,000 gallons). It's not until 40,000 gallons usage that those higher rates for big users take over and the rate per 1,000 gallons starts creeping upward again. Here is the same table again, only this time showing the effective rate per 1,000 gallons.

$9.95 per 1,000 gallons for 1,000 gallons
$6.45 per 1,000 gallons for 2,000 gallons
$5.28 per 1,000 gallons for 3,000 gallons
$4.70 per 1,000 gallons for 4,000 gallons
$4.35 per 1,000 gallons for 5,000 gallons
$4.12 per 1,000 gallons for 6,000 gallons
$3.95 per 1,000 gallons for 7,000 gallons
$3.83 per 1,000 gallons for 8,000 gallons
$3.73 per 1,000 gallons for 9,000 gallons
$3.65 per 1,000 gallons for 10,000 gallons
$3.59 per 1,000 gallons for 11,000 gallons
$3.41 per 1,000 gallons for 20,000 gallons
$3.38 per 1,000 gallons for 30,000 gallons
$3.37 per 1,000 gallons for 40,000 gallons <--- lowest rate
$3.47 per 1,000 gallons for 50,000 gallons
$3.54 per 1,000 gallons for 60,000 gallons
$3.60 per 1,000 gallons for 70,000 gallons

The council members understood what was happening here. City Manager Bill Keffler quickly identified that minimum $7.00 charge as being responsible for the high unit price paid by conservers of water. He said that there's a minimum $7.00 charge just because it costs something to connect people to the water system no matter how little water they use. That's true enough. But so what? If the primary goal is to conserve water, then the city should eliminate that minimum charge. The rates for usage can be adjusted upwards to keep the change revenue neutral in total. If the goal is conservation, then residents should be charged only for the water they use and the effective rate should go up with increased usage, instead of down as the current structure has it.

But perhaps that's too radical. Perhaps the council feels there's a fairness issue here (although Bill Keffler did not say so in his response to David Chenoweth). Perhaps the council wants everyone to pay that $7.00 because that's the cost of just maintaining the pipes, before any water runs through them at all. Fair enough. Then, they should at least adjust the rates so that the unit rate per 1,000 gallons bottoms out at much less than 35,000 gallons usage per month. Lower the rate for the first 11,000 or 20,000 gallons and increase the rate for usage over 20,001 gallons. Again, adjust the rates to keep the change revenue neutral, but set the rates so that the bigger users pay more, not just in absolute dollar amounts, but in the effective rate per 1,000 gallons as well.

All this is dependent on the assumption that the goal is to conserve water. Bill Keffler implied that was the goal of the rate structure, but there are two reasons why that might not be the only careabout driving the rate structure. First, council members may want to actually favor the bigger users of water for various reasons, or at least not be seen as penalizing them. More importantly, the city contract with the North Texas Municipal Water District (NTMWD) guarantees the city will buy from NTMWD a given amount of water each year. Conservation below that contracted minimum won't result in any cost savings for the city at all. There might be more global reasons why water conservation would still be a Good Thing™, but the city council might not care as much if it doesn't save the city any money directly.

In summary, David Chenoweth did have a point. The city's goals in this area ought to be reviewed and clarified, then the water rates themselves ought to be reviewed and adjusted if necessary to better impact the city's goals.

Councilman fears "onerous" open records requests

Wants extra credit for answering public's questions

Monday evening, the Richardson City Council held a public hearing on the proposed budget for fiscal year 2009-2010. There was much discussion about overtime expenses, car allowances, staff salaries and other areas to keep costs under control. New councilman Bob Macy's budget concern seemed to be the cost of answering the public's questions and open records requests as required by state law. My transcript of his remarks (Item 5 Part 2 beginning 29:10):

Bob Macy: "Uh I have a comment to, to, I'd like to bring up. The uh, we have a lot of, I'm glad that we have people that come up in front of us to have comments and they take their time to look into situations and make recommendations and, uh, I, I'm complimentary about that but I also think we need a line item or a budget item to keep track of the time that the city staff has to, to, work with and prepare results, prepare answers to the questions that come up, and uh, I don't know what the magnitude of that would be. Bill, I don't know, do you have any kind of recommendation on what kind of a magnitude a budget item would be for that?"

[Bill Keffler's answer not transcribed]

Macy: "Well, do you think maybe, uh, that there ought to be some accountability on that because it's taking time from your staff that, I mean, they're hired to do a certain job so when they take time to answer these questions it ought to be something they can charge to or get credit for in addition to their regular job."

[Bill Keffler's answer not transcribed]

Macy: "I'm hearing that you don't think we need a line item, a particular item."

[Bill Keffler's answer not transcribed]

Macy: "I'm just, uh, putting out the notion that we ought to have a budget item for that. If you think it's not necessary or not advisable, that's fine."

[Bill Keffler's answer not transcribed]

Macy: "Is there a level that it becomes onerous, I mean, you know, is too much? Do we have any kind of control on, you know, when it's normal and when it gets to be, you know, out of reason?"

[Bill Keffler and rest of council's answers not transcribed]

Love that Bob.

Texas Instruments RFAB

Good things come to those who wait

Is it possible that Texas Instruments' shell of a wafer fab in Richardson just might, eventually, be equipped and brought online to start producing the world's first analog products from a 300mm line? It's just possible, according to this story from Virginia. If so, the promise of jobs and tax revenues might finally be fulfilled.

Autogate

Silly season, Richardson style

As long ago as the 19th century, late summer was known as the "silly season", when government and business go on vacation and the news media are desperate for how to fill newsprint or, more recently, air time. Animal attacks are a perennial favorite (Sharks!). So, too, are movie star scandals or crime stories. Better still if you can combine the two (Jacko Dead! Doctor Questioned!). But this summer, government is not relinquishing the stage. We've had everything from a governor adding "hiking the Appalachian Trail" to our endless list of euphemisms for having sex to nutty "birthers" and "deathers" trying to derail President Obama.

Richardson is not immune to silly season outbreaks. One current hot topic is whether the city manager is crossing the line of good governance by, a) getting a car allowance, or b) driving a land-yacht Ford Expedition, or c) letting his family use his city-leased car, or d) occasionally driving a city pool car when his family is using his city-leased car, or e) all of the above and, besides, he's friends with Gary Slagel, blech!

The story began when a citizen voiced a heartfelt complaint at a city council meeting. It gained momentum by showing up on YouTube (where else?) and being covered in the local "Conserve & Protect" blog. That led Ian McCann to be all over the story for The Dallas Morning News. McCann found that "most other cities provide auto benefits for employees" (d'oh). He also found that city manager Bill Keffler did occasionally drive a pool car when his family was using his city-leased car, but quit the practice a year ago after being asked to by then-mayor Steve Mitchell (that's right, this summer's big controversy is over something Keffler says he quit doing a year ago). Keffler now plans to quit driving a pool car altogether, even when his city-leased car is in the shop. (No word on how he will get to business meetings those days. Maybe he'll walk. Wearing sackcloth.)

Will this appease the critics? Probably not. The critics have already escalated, targeting car allowances in general, high salaries, uniform allowances, and "perks" of any kind. Further, we have charges that the city is lying to the DMN about its car allowances and that the DMN is serving the city as Pravda once served the USSR. After all, it is silly season.

Where Is ... the Blockhouse?

From Where Is ...

This is another in an occasional series of photos for which readers are challenged to identify the location where the photo was taken. Today's challenge: what is this blockhouse and where is it located?

I call it a blockhouse because it sort of looks like a blockhouse (to me), not because it has a military purpose. In fact, I'm not sure what its purpose is and I don't know how it works. I do know what I was looking for when I found it. Maybe I'll learn whether it's what I was looking for from readers who can identify it.

As always, readers who identify the location win a year's free subscription to "Ed Cognoski." Bonus points for identifying which recent blog topic and comment on Conserve & Protect inspired the choice of subject.

Previous challenge: Where is ... the Park Bench?

Storm Water, Redevelopment and Golf

What do these have in common?

All three are getting the Richardson City Council's attention lately, but only one really matters.

In July, at the end of a long council worksession, the council discussed a proposed new utility fee to set up a dedicated fund for storm water drainage operations instead of paying for these operations out of the general fund. The council exhibited what I considered unseemly haste in discussing how they could repurpose the general fund, with redevelopment of the Spring Valley corridor a popular option. I voiced my distaste with the process. If storm water operations is better funded out of a dedicated utility fee than out of general fund, then the general tax rate ought to go down equivalently to make the shift revenue neutral. Anything else gives at least the appearance of a money grab despite all the protestations to the contrary. And if a redevelopment fund is called for, it ought to be presented to the taxpayers as the reason why the checks they write to the City of Richardson (for taxes and fees) are getting bigger.

I called for open discussion of the redevelopment of Spring Valley corridor. Let's give it all the time and attention it requires. Let's fund it openly.

In August, the city council spent nearly two hours reviewing a report on the operation of the city-owned Sherrill Park golf course. The conclusion: Sherrill Park is operating just fine. It's profitable. It's a great example of a public-private partnership.

This time it is Andrew Laska, of the Richardson Heights Homeowners Association, who is calling for more discussion of the redevelopment of the Spring Valley corridor. In an editorial in The Richardson Echo, Laska argues that the city council should quit trying to fix what's already working (Sherrill Park) and spend more time on "real problems" (Spring Valley). I welcome his call to get Spring Valley corridor redevelopment out in the open, on the table, and thoroughly aired. Over the next decade redevelopment is going to be the biggest issue facing Richardson, not our golf courses, not storm water management, not our landfill transfer stations, not transparency in government. The more Richardson taxpayers are educated about the need and involved in crafting solutions, the better for everyone who lives or works in Richardson.

RISD Superintendent

Superintendent resigns unexpectedly

In a story in The Dallas Morning News, Jeffrey Weiss reports that "Richardson schools superintendent David Simmons resigned late Monday in what one board member called a difference in philosophy."

There's certainly nothing wrong with the board wanting to see improvements in areas other than TAKS scores, including more National Merit scholars, higher SAT scores and more participation in vocational classes. In fact, there's a lot to like in that. Why the board doesn't consider David Simmons to be the right superintendent to carry progress into those areas is probably a matter we'll never know. In any case, he should be commended for preserving the legacy of quality education in the RISD. Everyone ought to wish him well in his future endeavors.

UT-Dallas Police Scandal

Brass Pig Award? What were you thinking?

The UT-Dallas police chief resigned without explanation in May, after having been placed on administrative leave in April. Hints of scandal hung over her head. Last week, clues to what was behind the actions began leaking out. According to Holly K. Hacker in a story in The Dallas Morning News

"The former police chief of the University of Texas at Dallas ran personal errands in her state-leased sport utility vehicle, several employees allege. They say she ordered employees to drive her family to the airport for vacations, and to do work for her consulting businesses. ... [O]fficers objected to the 'Brass Pig Award,' created by Ridge and given at an annual awards banquet to the officer 'with the most embarrassing mishap of the preceding year.'"

All in all, petty and tawdry. Good examples for that management training chapter titled "What Makes a Bad Boss."

Are there any larger lessons to learn here? That remains to be seen. How did the situation get out of control? Were these longstanding offenses that were widely known but overlooked? Was oversight of the police chief herself lax? Did the university discourage employees from reporting abuses? The sooner we can get past the juicy details about the chief's SUV and her brass pig and get on to the meatier details about who in the higher-up UT-Dallas administration let the campus police department get so far out of control, the sooner UT-Dallas can put this whole sorry chapter behind it.

Transparency in Gov't

Guess who's the leader of the band?

The Richardson Coalition, a political action committee whose slate of candidates swept the Richardson City Council elections this year, is praising recent plans by the council to broadcast and stream council meetings. The PAC's latest editorial is titled, "Transparency... Finally, some progress!"

"While it is a fact that there is already a great deal of transparency in our city affairs, we have had a real need to make a significant improvement. For the past two years there has been much talk and not much action in this very important area."

After the spit-take, I had to go back and check that it was, indeed the Richardson Coalition that published this editorial. The candidates who did the most to make transparency an issue in the recent council election campaign were universally opposed by the Richardson Coalition. Thanks to these challengers for making it an issue, all of the candidates, including those eventually elected, had gone on record during the election campaign supporting the video streaming of council meetings.

But not the Richardson Coalition itself. On its Web site, the Richardson Coalition publishes issues it urges the city council to take action on. Transparency is not among them. Searching its editorial archives, the only time the word "transparency" appeared before now was in an editorial criticizing the Richardson Fire Fighters Association for supporting candidates in the election.

Finally, some progress, indeed. Now that it's almost a done deal, the Richardson Coalition is at the head of the parade cheering this progress. Next time, show some leadership.

NY and TX and Semiconductors

NY's bet pays off

Semiconductor International, not the usual place you find a discussion about horse racing, takes us to Saratoga Springs to tell us a tale of two bets, one that paid off, one that didn't. The winner was New York's investment in semiconductor fabs in upstate New York. The loser was the state of Texas, whose subsidies for Texas Instruments' empty fab in Richardson have yet to yield results.

There are no lessons here to help us make better bets in the future, but maybe the story offers consolation to the taxpayers in Texas to learn that maybe it wasn't necessarily a stupid bet. Some horses pay. Some don't. That's how gambling works.

Hat tip to Pris Hayes. Follow her on Twitter.

Shop Class

It's not your father's Oldsmobile fix-it class any more

Jeffrey Weiss, in The Dallas Morning News Richardson blog, reports that Lake Highlands High School fell just short of achieving a rating of "Recognized" this year from the Texas Education Association (TEA) because its drop-out rate was over the limit by just two students. LHHS plans to appeal the result, as it claims there are at least four students counted as drop-outs who simply transferred to other districts without notifying the RISD.

What caught my attention were reader comments such as this from "PegTxEx":

"Ugh. This makes me physically ill. I wonder if these two students would have stayed in school if they were learning a 'trade' through some of their classes."

I wonder how many Richardson residents are unaware of just how rich the course offerings are in the RISD? RISD recognizes that a university degree is not right for everyone. RISD offers a wide range of career and technology education (CATE) courses including trade and industrial education in fields such as

• Building Trades - LHHS only
• Electrical Systems - BHS and RHS only
• Metal Technology Systems - RHS only
• Cosmetology - LHHS and BHS only
• Criminal Justice - LHHS only
• Geographic Information Systems - PHS only
• Transportation Systems (Automotive) - RHS only
• Infinity Project (Engineering) - PHS only
• Project Lead the Way - BHS STEM Academy only
• Robotics - RHS only

Through CATE and other programs, RISD does seek to provide a benefit for all students to stay in school, whether they intend to go on to college or not. Its because of this proactive approach that RISD has been "Recognized" by the TEA four years in a row, the largest school district in the state to be able to make that claim.

Where Is ... the Park Bench?

From Where Is ...

This is another in an occasional series of photos for which readers are challenged to identify the location where the photo was taken. Today's challenge: where is the park bench?

As always, readers who identify the location win a year's free subscription to "Ed Cognoski." Bonus points for identifying which recent blog topic inspired the choice of subject.

Previous challenge: Where is ... the Angel?

Dinner at Gary's

Dear Abby,

I went out for dinner Wednesday night to an old restaurant under new management called Gary's. I ordered an appetizer, a salad, an entree and a glass of wine. The total came to $40, which I considered affordable, but not cheap. The food and wine were good, the restaurant location superb. At the end of the evening, I was satiated. I reached into my wallet, pulled out two twenties and placed them on the table. Then, the waiter, a nice young man named Dan, came with the check and a special offer. He said that if I allowed him to place my $5 glass of wine on a separate bar bill, that would free up $5 on my meal bill for me to order dessert. It sounded like a free dessert to me, so I reached back in my wallet, pulled out a five, placed it on the table on top of the two twenties already there, and picked up the dessert menu. Later, in the car, my dinner companion asked me if I knew what that extra five dollars that I pulled out of my wallet had just paid for. I said my glass of wine. She said it was my dessert. It caused a bit of an argument between us, but now I'm wondering. Was she right? Was Dan's offer just some fast talking?

Signed,
$5 Poorer in Richardson

Richardson Storm Water Utility Fee

Sleight of hand in budget-making

Ian McCann, in The Dallas Morning News Richardson blog, does as good a job as possible presenting the City of Richardson's case for a new utility fee to pay for projects related to storm water drainage. Unfortunately, the explanation just doesn't hold up.

In short, Richardson has been paying for drainage-related operations out of the general fund. Because "greater obligations are looming in the future," the city council wants to create a dedicated fee for such operations, presumably to raise more money to pay for these greater obligations.

On the surface, it sounds straightforward, but follow the money and it begins to look like a shell game. It looks like a way for Mayor Gary Slagel to finance a new "redevelopment fund" by imposing a new storm water drainage utility fee. With a new utility fee in place, there will be $1 million in the general fund no longer needed to pay for storm-related operations. Instead of reducing the tax rate a like amount, mayor Gary Slagel proposes keeping the tax rate and putting the million dollars into a "redevelopment fund" that McCann describes as "more fuzzy than the utility spending itself." The net result? Richardson residents will be paying, on average, $3.50 more per month and the council will have a million dollar redevelopment fund to disperse.

No wonder the topic was saved for the last item on a long night's budget session agenda. No wonder the utility fee is being left out of the budget. Look, I'm inclined to support a dedicated storm water utility fee. It's good for residents to see exactly how much they are paying for what. I'm also inclined to support a redevelopment fund. Richardson needs significant redevelopment, especially in the Coit/Spring Valley area and along the southern part of Central Expressway. What I'm not comfortable with is how the city council is selling this to the residents of Richardson. The juggling of fees and funds may be a necessary, if messy, part of any budget-making process. But sleight of hand shouldn't be part of it.

RISD Teacher Ratings

What does it take to be proficient?

Dunno. Jeffrey Weiss, in The Dallas Morning News Richardson blog, does a service to the public by seeking and publishing data from the Richardson ISD's teacher evaluation database. Only two teachers were rated "unsatisfactory" in any of the eight rating criteria used. Only 41 of 2,346 teachers were rated less than "proficient" in any criteria. Weiss says he's reminded of Garrison Keillor's fictional Lake Wobegon where "all the children are above average."

Wait a minute. Weiss leaves the impression that the laws of mathematics demand that the raw scores should be plotted on a graph and every teacher below the mid-point be judged to have a performance "below expectations." But that's not what's being measured. The teachers aren't being rated against each other but against a standard. The goal, the plan, is that *all* teachers meet that standard, that is, all teachers should be "proficient" in their profession. If they aren't, they shouldn't have been hired in the first place. If they somehow slipped through the hiring process, they ought to receive mentoring and training to become proficient. If they are unable to, they ought to be let go. If the administrators are doing their jobs, any competent ISD (which the RISD arguably is) ought to have a very high percentage of teachers judged "proficient." Such a result does not mean that all the teachers are above average and the RISD is not making such a claim.

I suspect Weiss knows this, but was trying to be clever by bringing up the saying about Lake Wobegon's children. Weiss promises "more serious journalism about it anon." Let's hope so. Perhaps he'll explore how "proficiency" is measured, how objective it is, and whether it's a meaningful measure of the quality of classroom instruction or correlates with student achievement. Because even though the goal might be to have every teacher be proficient, a claim that as many as 98% or 99% are proficient just might be a tad optimistic.

Where Is ... the Angel?

From Where Is ...

This is another in an occasional series of photos for which readers are challenged to identify the location where the photo was taken. Today's challenge: where is the angel?

As always, the first reader to identify the location wins a year's free subscription to "Ed Cognoski." Bonus points for identifying which recent blog topic inspired the choice of subject.

Streaming Video of Council Meetings

Come August, Richardson will be online

Ian McCann, in The Dallas Morning News Richardson blog, reports that Richardson's city council is likely to begin making streaming video of council meetings available on the city's Web site beginning in August. Reader Sherri adds that council member John Murphy, in conversation after the council meeting, suggested that podcasts of the audio of council meetings might be available as early as next week.

This is all good news. If there was an issue that resonated with the electorate in the recent council election, it was transparency in government, with streaming video of council meetings the most requested symbol of improving transparency (that and an online checkbook). All of the candidates supported putting video of council meetings online, so it's good to see the new council quickly live up to what many considered an implicit promise.

Even though neither video nor audio of this week's council meeting was available online, Ian McCann did the next best thing by live-blogging the meeting via Twitter. Having a journalist tweeting highlights is great and will continue to be even after we get live broadcasts. Let's face it, there's a lot of dead time in a city council meeting. Having someone summarize is a great service and doing it in real time is even better, as it affords Twitter followers the opportunity to tune in when the debate gets interesting. Like when McCann reported the discussion about the costs of providing streaming video: "7-10K too much to set up cameras? Amir Omar says...'I've got a friend who could do it for a couple hundred bucks.'"

If others join the conversation, too, there's the potential of having the electorate play a significant role in council deliberations, not just play spectator. Maybe we need a Richardson hashtag like #cortx to collect all the chatter my feverish imagination predicts we'll have.

By the way, is streaming video the biggest issue facing Richardson? Of course not. But it's the right thing to do. And it's easy to do. It doesn't keep us from tackling other issues at the same time. Let's do it.