Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

chtechcomm - [Chtechcomm] History and Context of IT committee plans

chtechcomm AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Chapel Hill Technology Advisory Committee

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Terri Buckner <tbuckner AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: Chapel Hill Information Technology Advisory Committee <chtechcomm AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [Chtechcomm] History and Context of IT committee plans
  • Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 19:20:23 -0400

At our July meeting, the new members asked for some context to the plans being discussed. I've endeavored to write a not-so-short history and reference those documents that I think are most relevant. I hope this is what you all wanted. -- Terri

*************************************

The TechComm (also known as the IT Committee and CTC) was first created, through a Council resolution, in 1999. At that time, the town did not have an IT director. Bob Avery was employed, through the Finance Dept., to keep the desktops and network operational. In 2000, the TechComm presented Council with a comprehensive technology plan with one of the items being to create an independent technology department with its own director. That suggestion was adopted in 2001 and Bob was promoted. Other items on the technology plan were also addressed, but the plan was not adopted in total. As you will see, the financial commitment to technology was considerably less than the committee suggested.
See: http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/archives/agendas/ca010226/8(1)-IT%20Report%202001%20Agenda.htm (includes link to original plan and cost analysis)

When I joined the committee in the summer of 2002, the majority of members had been on the committee since its inception. The first few monthly meetings I attended consisted of a lot of talk about the importance of GIS, but not much more. That fall, Bill Groves, prior chair, prompted the committee to undertake a new strategic plan. After a couple of months of discussion, the committee asked Bob Avery to send out a survey to all the department chairs. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a copy of the survey or the questions we asked. The town manager endorsed this survey and the responses we got back were informative and detailed.

Through text analysis, we identified three (3) primary areas of concern by the managers:

1. Infrastructure: my recollection is that all or nearly all of the departments had serious concerns about infrastructure. Planning and Inspections want to issue permits and licenses online; public safety needs more current data to be available to officers in the field; etc.
2. Communications: several departments were contracting out for their departmental websites. They wanted a consolidated site; better training for staff; and better communications with their public. Public safety, planning and the fire department all want to use GIS tools, which we included here under communications and under document management.
3. Document management: Engineering summed up the problem: "Efforts should continue Townwide to decrease the volume of "paper"

In our February 2004 report to Council (part of budget review process), we notified Council that we would be working on a strategic plan focused on these three areas of concern. The presentation (attached) identified a goal, beneficiary, and planned actions for each. We also provided some statistics on what portion of the budget towns of similar sizes commit to technology and notified Council of our intention to formalize policies on network security, data recovery, and environmental sustainability. Our budget recommendations were to hire a web master, a GIS manager, an e-democracy ombudsman, as well as consultants to help flesh out the three (3) plans. We also supported hiring an additional PC technician at Bob's request. In addition, we promised to make quarterly reports on our progress. Outcome: A PC technician and a webmaster were included in the 2004 budget. We've haven't lived up to the promise to make quarterly reports.
(presentation attached: CTC Council Participation--2-2004)

Following the presentation, which I think we all felt very positive about, members of the committee signed up to work on one of the issues. We separated GIS out into its own separate group at that point and the Communication issue became the web strategy subcommittee, which assumed responsibility for document management. The task for each of the three (3) subcommittees was to develop a plan to accomplish to goals set out in the presentation.

Editorial aside: This is where we began to experience some problems. Was our mission to address staff concerns or provide a vision for how technology could be used by citizens? We've tried to straddle the line on this, which has, in my opinion, contributed to some of our internal debates and our failure to elicit more support from Council.

The Web Strategy Group, composed of Ralph Beisner, Evelyn Daniel and myself, got right to work and submitted a plan that was voted on and approved by the full committee in July 2004. The plan was intended to "provide an integrated, standards-based website easily accessed by Chapel Hill citizenry, town employees, local businesses, and other interested parties." The plan is deceptively simple and is focused primarily on creating document standards for easy searching and archiving, and accessibility (dial up connections, public computers, Section 508). It included focus groups with citizens and town staff in order to develop a more 'finely grained communications plan.' Our expectation was that Bob would keep the old site running for another 6 months while this plan was implemented.
(I believe you have all received a copy of this plan--if not, please let me know and I'll distribute it again.)

When we presented the web strategy plan (October 2004?) to Council, the presentation included a 5-minute description of e-democracy (the committee's vision for IT) followed by an explanation for how the web strategy would accomplish that 'vision.' After many emails back and forth, we had agreed to a definition of e-democracy as "the use of digital communication technologies to promote direct and active participation in government." While we succeeded in introducing the concept of e-democracy to Council and showing them excellent websites from smaller, less erudite communities, they didn't take any action (such as referring the plan to staff so that it could be funded). It's my opinion, they didn't understand that we wanted them to accept it since we didn't 'petition' them to do so.

In July 2004 the committee had its first significant membership change. Most of the new members of the committee were assigned to the Infrastructure subcommittee. As I recall, Doug Noell is the only senior committee member who worked with that group which began developing their plan in November 2004. They faced a steep learning curve since no one on that group had been involved in the discussions leading up to the February 2004 presentation to Council. The GIS group also got revved up that fall and by spring we had a plan from both groups. I don't remember which months we voted to accept the two but it was before April. Gregg has provided you all with copies of the infrastructure plan I believe.

While those two (2) subgroups were working, the committee as a whole made another trip to Council on November 15, 2004 for a 'working' meeting on e-democracy (our vision). Our intention was to listen to what Council members thought about e-democracy. But they didn't speak initially and so (this won't surprise anyone) our members stepped up and started talking. We never did hear what Council members thought before that meeting, but we've heard repeatedly how confused they were afterwards. The problem I think comes for our own internal disagreements on the difference between e-democracy and digital government. The chair, Alan Rimer, sent a follow up memo in December trying to save the situation by answering questions we thought we heard from Council.
(see attached: Memo to Council on Meeting of 11-15VF)

While the infrastructure and GIS committees were working on their plans, Bob Avery decided to issue a RFP for a new town website. Although the RFP included some elements of the web strategy plan, it focused more on meeting Bob's desire for a content management system than elements such as the document creation standards that were foundational to the committee-endorsed web strategy. After several meetings in which we tried to hash this problem out, we were informed that Bob had entered the town into a contest for a free website and that we had won. At that point, the RFP and the web strategy plans were set aside. The town's new web master, who started work on July 1, is now working with CivicPlus and web managers from the various town departments, to move the town site into their system. The manager has informed all departments that they will move their sites into CivicPlus so that the town will have a unified look and feel (and reduced costs). The preliminary contract was for two (2) years of free hosting of X number of documents. We know the full archive will not be going into CivicPlus, but we have not seen the final contract so no additional details can be provided at this time.

In late fall 2004, we began recommending that Steve Irving be appointed, as the committee's representative to the Town Operations Center planning group. We also requested that Gregg Gerdau be appointed as the committee's representative on the Budget Advisory Committee. Neither of these requests was acted upon although Alan Rimer was appointed to the Budget committee so we did have representation. Although we have representatives from the Library and Public Safety attending our meetings somewhat regularly, we have little to no interaction with the rest of the town departments. If we are ever going to make any difference in this town, we need to help Council understand that technology is more than just computers. The fact that they sent the SmartCard for parking issue to us is a step in the right direction even if it did come too late (parking meters had already been purchased).

Around January 2005, in preparation for Alan's departure as Chair, along with Roscoe Reeves, Bill Groves, and Doug Noell, all members since the committee's inception, we began developing our own set of bylaws, using the council procedures guide and the planning boards bylaws as our guide. The bylaws were adopted in April 2005, and our first election was conducted in May 2005. This group of members will be the first to operate under these formal guidelines rather than the more casual atmosphere of the past. We have some learning to do in terms of process.
(You should each have a copy of the bylaws, if not, please advise.)

Our most recent Council appearance was in April 2005. Council had asked each of the advisory boards to make recommendations on how to save the town money. Alan presented our cost savings recommendation along with the 3 technology plans (consisting of a spreadsheet for infrastructure, web strategy, and GIS) as his last official act as chair. Once again, the Council did not forward the plans on to staff so they are, at this time, not officially recognized by the Town Council or the Town Manager.
(see attached: 3-23 TC Meeting Talking Points)

We were the only advisory board to act upon the Council request for cost savings suggestions. In the process of developing these recommendations, we found the original technology plan from 2000 and the manager's response to that plan. Bob Avery also provided a more current report on the plan's status (see above). To our surprise, that 5-year old plan addressed most of the issues included in our current plans. That fact signaled, to some of us, that the committee's big challenge is to figure out how to push these plans through Council. That is the origin of my statement at the last meeting that we have been "political" failures. We have developed good, solid technology recommendations and presented them to Council. But the council has not taken action on either the plans or the vision of e-democracy. However, our Council representative, Mark Kleinschmidt, has now attended two meetings and has promised to help guide us as we become more sophisticated in pushing forward our agenda.




Attachment: CTC Council Participation - 2-2004 V2.ppt
Description: MS-Powerpoint presentation

Attachment: 3-23 TC Meeting Talking Points Final Version.doc
Description: MS-Word document

Attachment: Memo to Council on Meeting of 11-15 VF.doc
Description: MS-Word document



  • [Chtechcomm] History and Context of IT committee plans, Terri Buckner, 08/02/2005

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page