Ellen Smith for Oak Ridge Rotating Header Image

Service outage during changeover of City of Oak Ridge website

The City is upgrading its internet services this weekend, but websites and email (including messages to the City Council addresses on the cortn.org domain) are likely to be offline most of the weekend. Anticipating that people will be wondering what’s going on, I’m posting an excerpt from the announcement I received from Oak Ridge City staff:

There will be an interruption in internet services beginning Friday,
November 4th, 2011, at 5pm and continuing until 7am on Monday, November 7th.
This will include access to our website and all services found within.
Some services could begin to reappear on Sunday.

During this period we will be in the process of changing internet
service providers. This move will increase our internet bandwidth from
9mb to 50mb. Multiple other changes will also be accomplished in
conjunction with this changeover.

Share

Missing my mother

Lately I’ve been very distracted due to my mother’s final illness and death. I spent a few days with her as she faded away from me, and I’ll be returning to Connecticut soon for a memorial service. I miss my “Mommy”. Here’s how she wanted to be remembered to the world (she drafted her own obituary):

Catherine V.A. Smith, known to family and friends as “Bobby”, died on October 25, 2011, in Hamden, Connecticut.

Born in Kane, Pennsylvania, on June 22, 1925, the daughter of Homer L. and Helen Wingard Van Aken, she grew up with her family in Amsterdam, New York. She graduated from Middlebury College in 1947 and received a Ph.D., in zoology, from Yale University in 1952. In 1951, she married David M. Smith, Morris Jesup Professor of Silviculture at Yale, and resided in Hamden ever since.

Active in many community and civic affairs, she considered herself a professional volunteer board member. She served as an elected member of the Hamden Representative Town Meeting and later the Hamden Board of Education. She was appointed to the Connecticut State Board of Education, which she chaired. Among the many other boards on which she served were the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, which in 1978 gave her its Distinguished Service Award, the National Association of State Boards of Education, board of trustees of the Connecticut Educational Television Corporation (now Connecticut Public Broadcasting), the Health Systems Agency of South Central Connecticut, and Council for Emergency Medical Services of South Central Connecticut. She was an honorary life member of the Connecticut Parent-Teachers Association and of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents. Most recently, she served for over 25 years in various capacities, including President, on the board of the Agency on Aging of South Central Connecticut.

She was an avid gardener, growing flowers, vegetables, and berries, saying “happiness is a full freezer”. She also enjoyed traveling, studying landscape, vegetation, birds, and relics of the past from rock formations to old houses, in the places they visited.

She is predeceased by her husband, and survived by two daughters, Ellen D. Smith (husband Richard Norby) of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Nancy V.A. Smith (husband John Stewart) of Carbondale Colorado, one grandson, Karl M.S. Norby of Chicago, a sister, Janet V. Gauthey (husband Richard) of Springfield, Virginia, and several nieces and nephews and cousins. She was predeceased by a sister, Elizabeth V. Kent of Amsterdam, N.Y., and a brother, Dr. John L. Van Aken, of Kent, Ohio.

A memorial service will be held in Hamden.

Share

New sign at Oak Ridge Welcome Center

Oak Ridge Welcome Center Sign

The new sign

This has been a long time coming, but it’s finally here: There’s now a nice information sign in front of the Oak Ridge Welcome Center (located in the historic Midtown Community Center on Oak Ridge Turnpike at the corner of Robertsville Road), complete with brochures and maps for after-hours visitors to take away.

I’ve been asking for this for years (at least the 5 summers since I was elected to City Council), for the benefit of visitors who arrive outside the center’s business hours and want maps or information on attractions, restaurants, etc. On my own travels, I often find myself looking for local visitor information outside of the local tourist office’s operating hours, so I know the value of making information available to after-hours visitors. Now I can stop asking when my own town will have this kind of thing! Congratulations to the Oak Ridge Convention Visitors Bureau on the completion of this project.

The sign is very attractive, and I’m pleased to see how nice the flower beds look behind the sign (garden plots sponsored by Keep Anderson County Beautiful). Welcome Center staff tell me there will be a hanging sign added at the bottom of the frame to list their hours.  I have a hunch they will also soon find themselves needing to figure out how to install more space for additional brochures and maps, as I expect this to become a popular resource.

Share

Next steps on LOC unclear

While the LOC is still in business for now, the future is uncertain. As Frank Munger describes in his blog and in today’s newspaper, under Mayor Beehan’s resolution, the mayors are supposed to convene to decide where they want to go in the future. Ironically, that’s exactly the way the LOC was set up in the first place. It’s not clear if the new meetings will be public meetings…

Share

Local Oversight Committee is still in business

After an interesting meeting in Kingston this afternoon, the Local Oversight Committee (LOC) is still in business. Oak Ridge Mayor Tom Beehan’s resolution to dissolve the organization passed (by a 7-4 vote), but only after several substantial amendments, including one that changed its main effect from “is hereby dissolved effective September 30″ to “is hereby to transition from a 501(c)(3) organization to an entity under a local government as a fiscal agent.”

After the meeting, I signed the TDEC grant contract to provide funding to make the LOC solvent again, as the board had voted to retain the June 30, 2012 contract ending date, but with the expectation that the organizational transition likely will happen before that date.

Members of the public (several of whom were in attendance) had an opportunity to speak early in the meeting. Among those making statements in support of retaining the LOC and describing its unique value to the region were a former Oak Ridge City Council member and former LOC chairman (Leonard Abbatiello, who said the LOC provides “the only independent technical review of what DOE is doing”), a former Roane County Commissioner who served on the LOC Board and was chairman of the SSAB (Bob Peelle), and a former member of the LOC CAP who also formerly chaired the SSAB (Luther Gibson). Elizabeth Peelle and Oak Ridge City Council member Anne Garcia Garland also added supportive statements as citizens.

I imagine that these citizen statements, together with messages that board members said they had received prior to the meeting, might have caused some of the board members to change their views. Roane County Executive Ron Woody said that his main concern regarding the current LOC structure was related to legal liability and fiscal controls; he expressed his general support for the LOC’s functions. Anderson County Mayor Myron Iwanski said he wanted to keep a “CAP-like organization”, but hoped it would enjoy fuller participation. [To be continued... Or read the news -- three area newspapers had reporters at the meeting, who took better notes than I could take as chairman.]

Share

More reflections on the anticipated demise of the Local Oversight Committee

People who get all of their local news from Oak Ridge’s daily newspaper still are unaware of the effort by some city and county officials to terminate the Local Oversight Committee at a meeting this afternoon (September 9, 2011), but yesterday’s issue of the Oak Ridge Observer has fairly in-depth coverage and Frank Munger has a new report on his KnoxNews blog.  I contributed a guest column to the Observer, regarding some of my thoughts on the issue, that’s included in yesterday’s issue.

I expect that this matter will become a  subject of discussion (although previously unscheduled) for tomorrow’s Oak Ridge City Council retreat, as it has significant implications for relationships among the mayor, other members of council, and the city manager.

Here’s a slightly revised version of the guest column that I submitted to the Observer:

With my expectation that the Local Oversight Committee LOC will be dismantled as a result of a meeting to be held Friday afternoon, I’m reflecting on the purpose of this unique organization, what it has accomplished, and what its abolition might mean for our region in the future.

From my close involvement with the organization as a board member (and current board chairman), I am keenly aware of its shortcomings, but I’ve also seen many positive contributions, and I expect that the LOC will be missed when it’s gone.

The LOC was an invention of the Oak Ridge region and the state of Tennessee, established to represent the interests of the public in communities most affected by the DOE Oak Ridge Reservation via the involvement of the local government officials who were elected to serve the interests and needs of their communities.

There is no other entity that is engaged with the process of cleaning up DOE legacy contamination around Oak Ridge and has a duty to ensure that local concerns and needs are addressed. Mission-driven organizations like DOE aim to do the right thing, but history has shown that DOE needs a “push” to ensure continuing progress in cleaning up its environmental legacies. U.S. EPA and state regulators work for the public interest, but their focus is on laws and regulations and federal and state goals, not the specific needs and concerns of local people. Local governments are not well-equipped to respond to the kinds of challenges that can be created by DOE contamination and environmental management efforts, because these are not the kinds of things that local government normally confronts.

The LOC is led by a board that represents the elected officials of eight local jurisdictions in the region and has provided direction via policies and position statements that were deemed consistent with the interests of the member jurisdictions and their citizens. The organization’s staff and the volunteers on the LOC Citizens Advisory Panel (CAP) provide technical expertise and devote considerable effort to monitoring DOE’s activities, budgets, plans, and findings — to identify negative and positive implications for area communities and their governments. Working together, the three components of the LOC organization have tried to provide well-reasoned, technically valid, and balanced perspectives on various matters related to DOE cleanup and related DOE activities, documented in communications distributed to member jurisdictions and outside organizations. When a specific need arose, the LOC conducted public education, both to promote awareness of conditions and to dispel inaccurate perceptions about the region, or helped run public meetings where citizens could express concerns and meet the state and federal officials whose job it is to help address those concerns.

The LOC seems to have won the respect of area citizens who follow developments related to DOE and the Oak Ridge site. I think its existence may have reduced the incentive for antinuclear organizations to make this area’s environment a target for high-profile criticism, as has happened at some other DOE sites.

Mayor Tom Beehan and others have suggested that the DOE’s Site-Specific Advisory Board serves the same purpose as the LOC. The SSAB does also include citizen volunteers, including some people with impressive expertise, and with a budget several times the size of the LOC budget, the SSAB certainly has greater visibility, but I don’t see the two organizations as equivalent. The SSAB is directed by DOE, is chartered to respond to DOE priorities (not local priorities), and its members are selected by DOE. The SSAB has no representation of local elected officials (with the occasional exception of individual officials such as Councilman David Mosby who have served as citizens) and no arrangement to ensure that the concerns of the people’s elected representatives are addressed.

Also, the SSAB charter limits its scope of activity to a specific set of topics related to DOE Environmental Management activities on the Oak Ridge Reservation. It is not authorized to address some of the kinds questions that turn up on the LOC’s agenda, such as whether there could be adverse effects on residents’ health from combined exposures to the cluster of DOE and private-sector waste processing facilities in western Oak Ridge and adjacent Roane County (the combined exposures seem to be very small, but it’s a challenge to get the information needed to provide the kind of reassurance that residents deserve). The SSAB also could not have played a role in preventing another DOE office from deciding to send radioactive waste from New York state to this area for disposal in the Chestnut Ridge Landfill, as the LOC did a year or two back.

Mayor Beehan’s proposed resolution to dissolve the LOC would summarily dismiss the organization’s citizen volunteers (both the CAP members and the volunteers who have loyally represented some jurisdictions on the LOC board), while “encouraging ongoing citizen participation through organizations such as” the SSAB, the Roane County Environmental Review Board (RCERB), and the Oak Ridge Environmental Quality Advisory Board (EQAB) “to contribute to DOE and State decisions affecting the local governments.”

I don’t believe that the authors of the resolution recognize what this means. If the mayors truly want EQAB and the RCERB to “contribute” in that fashion, the charters for both boards will have to change radically, as both are currently constituted to advise their local governments, not to contribute to DOE and state decisions. Also the boards would need to reorient their focus away from local matters and towards DOE. DOE was a large focus (and time sink) for EQAB during some of my years while I was on that board. The formation of the LOC CAP and the SSAB allowed EQAB to give more attention to local matters – and memberships on the LOC board created opportunities for EQAB, the RCERB and CAP to consult and collaborate on matters that crossed city and county lines. Furthermore, there’s been a special kind of magic in the way citizens have engaged with this regional entity. The LOC has allowed technically minded newcomers from different parts of our region (from Oak Ridge to Oakdale to Ten Mile and Tellico Village) to come together and get involved in studying and working to resolve not only their own questions about personal safety, but also community concerns about matters like postings against fish consumption on streams and lakes.

The aspect of DOE contamination and cleanup that most interests most of the mayors is not the technical details, but rather is the EM budget. On September 1 Mayor Tom Beehan said that the city’s membership in the Energy Communities Alliance (ECA) provides Oak Ridge city government with the resources it needs to engage with DOE regarding matters like the cleanup budget. It’s certainly true that the ECA, based in Washington, DC, is a savvy organization that is well-positioned to advise on goings-on around Congress and to facilitate networking with other DOE host communities. However, from its offices in Washington, the ECA can’t alert us about the special situations here that ought to convince DOE and Congress of a need to devote more resources to Oak Ridge – like the evidence that contaminated groundwater from waste disposal areas near ORNL may be moving under the Clinch River toward private wells in Roane County.

I think we still need the effort that the LOC was established to provide, and I think I’m going to miss this organization when it’s gone. For one thing, I have a feeling I’m going to need to devote a lot more of my time to tracking DOE activities and cleanup progress because the community won’t be able to depend on the efforts of LOC staff and volunteers to alert us to things we need to know.

Share

Local Oversight Committee

At a meeting on Friday afternoon, Oak Ridge Mayor Tom Beehan and several county mayors from around the region are expected to vote to dissolve the Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee (LOC), asking the state to instead direct the LOC’s funding to a “board of mayors and county executives” who will decide how to spend the money for the benefit of their local governments.

Since 2007 I’ve served as the LOC board chairman, representing the City of Oak Ridge. Right now, I’m feeling a bit like I was “hung out to dry” by other city officials who were working to eliminate the LOC, unbeknownst to me, at the same time that I was trying to fulfill my duties as a board member by seeking answers to questions about the  prospects for continued funding to pay the organization’s bills.

The LOC is a nonprofit that was formed 20 years ago to represent the interests of local jurisdictions affected by Department of Energy (DOE) environmental contamination, contamination rumors, cleanup, and other DOE activities in Oak Ridge. Its efforts have included conducting public education, evaluating and making recommendations on DOE reports and actions, and communicating local concerns to state and federal governments. The LOC has a 2-person staff and operates with grant funding from the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC), which in turn gets the money from DOE under the Tennessee Oversight Agreement (TOA). It is led by a board of directors consisting of the mayors (or county executives) of Oak Ridge and seven area counties, plus the chairmen of three environmental advisory boards. In practice, most jurisdictions are represented by alternates who have particular interests or government responsibilities in environment or emergency management.

A volunteer Citizens Advisory Panel (CAP) does a lot of the LOC’s work. Over the years, the CAP membership has included a variety of people wanting to “give back” to the community by evaluating technical materials and helping with public education. Among them are long-time area residents retired from jobs with federal contractors, current employees of DOE contractors and waste processing businesses, and newcomers to the region eager for the chance to learn about local conditions and set their minds at ease about living here.

I’ve been on the board of directors for a large fraction of the LOC’s existence, first during stints as chairman of the Oak Ridge Environmental Quality Advisory Board (EQAB) and since 2007 representing the Oak Ridge City Council as the mayor’s alternate. Also in 2007, I succeeded Leonard Abbatiello (the previous mayoral alternate) as chairman of the LOC board.

The latest five-year TOA was up for renewal this year. That renewal has been delayed, apparently mostly because of differences between DOE and the state of Tennessee regarding how much of a funding cut the state should have to suffer. When the new state fiscal year started on July 1 with no money for the LOC and no new TOA agreement in sight, I guessed that the LOC’s funding would be reduced or possibly eliminated However, there were oral assurances from TDEC that the new TOA would provide money for the LOC, so we did not take the drastic steps of shutting down the office and laying off staff when last year’s money ran out, but I did make sure that staff understood that they could choose not to work, since there might not be any money to pay them.

I believe that state officials were sincere when they gave assurances about future funding, but they were confused by the fact that, at the same time I was asking them about funding for the LOC, other officials from my city government were privately urging them to terminate funding for the organization. (Frank Munger of the Knoxville News Sentinel has documented some of that story on his blog — he and I both obtained copies of city manager Mark Watson’s August 3rd letter to the state on August 23.)

At a special meeting of the LOC board on September 1, called by Ron Woody and Myron Iwanski of Roane and Anderson counties to discuss the LOC’s finances and future, several of the mayors in attendance (only two of whom had ever previously attended an LOC board meeting) expressed their desire to dissolve the LOC and use TDEC funding for other local purposes. This Friday, at another LOC board meeting, I expect that most of the region’s eight mayors will vote as members of the LOC board to dissolve the organization and ask TDEC to give the money that would have gone to the LOC to one of the local governments to be used as directed by a regional “board of mayors and county executives.” Added (September 8, 2011): The Roane County News reported on the meeting.

It’s not entirely clear why the mayors want to do away with the LOC. It’s probably  valid to generalize that they don’t think the LOC’s activities are relevant to them. In recent years, DOE and its environmental cleanup has not been seen as a crisis for the region’s local governments. That’s a contrast from the LOC’s early years, when mercury in the East Fork Poplar Creek floodplain was a hot topic, DOE was actively conducting Superfund investigations of sediments and fish in Watts Bar Lake, and owners of Watts Bar marinas and resorts said that worry about possible contamination was costing them business. In the 1990s, local governments sought LOC’s help in working with federal and state regulators and in providing public education resources to help dispel people’s concerns. In more recent years, DOE activities were no longer a crisis for local governments (although there are some serious issues that should not be ignored) and the LOC staff has found it a struggle to interact effectively with the region’s local officials, particularly with all seven counties getting new mayors since August 2010. As board chairman, I’m acutely aware of ways in which the LOC has fallen short of its potential, and I’ve had a longstanding concern about a need for more effective involvement of the member jurisdictions.

Instead of using their positions as board members to redirect the LOC’s management and activities, the mayors want to dissolve the organization. They give multiple reasons. At the September 1 meeting, one mayor said that he considered the board’s six yearly meetings to be too tedious to attend (a judgment apparently based on the meeting agendas). It was also said to be  inappropriate for the LOC to communicate with DOE and state agencies on behalf of the region — at least one mayor says that only the individual governments should communicate with DOE. Oak Ridge city manager Mark Watson has observed that a stand-alone nonprofit organization such as the LOC has some costs (which I summarize as “organizational overhead”) that would not exist if the TDEC grant funds were managed under the umbrella of a city or county government. He would like the funding to be used for the direct benefit of individual local governments, such as for training, instead of paying for an organization’s operations. At least one of the mayors is critical of the LOC for not having directors and officers liability insurance for the board (a good idea, but something that had never been suggested previously by any board member or alternate).

This whole sequence of events has been strange and upsetting for me. I foresee this episode undermining future working relationships within the City Council and with the City Manager. There are additional implications for the relationship between the mayor and other Council members, considering that our mayor is not a voter-elected executive but is elected by other council members for a list of duties (in the city charter) that does not appear to include abolishing nonprofits without Council authorization: “The mayor shall preside at meetings of the council, shall have a vote on all matters but no veto power, shall be the ceremonial head of the city, shall sign ordinances and resolutions on their final passage, shall sign deeds, bonds and contracts when authorized by the council to do so, shall be the officer to accept process against the city, shall not have any regular administrative duties, and shall perform only such duties as shall be specifically conferred.”

I can only imagine how Susan and Joyce, the LOC staff, are feeling, as they watch their jobs get swept away by politics.

Share

Some thoughts about school standardized testing

Cartoon of car with a bumper sticker that reads "My child is a great test taker"

Clay Bennett cartoon from the Chattanooga Times Free Press

With school starting up for the year,  everywhere I turn somebody is talking about standardized testing in schools. Oak Ridge schools are making TCAP test scores count for a fraction of kids’ grades (not the school board’s idea — it’s a state mandate!), Tennessee is requesting a waiver from the No Child Left Behind requirements, and Clay Bennett’s editorial cartoon from the Chattanooga paper reminds us that testing often seems to be what today’s schools are all about. Outsiders and residents both evaluate a community on its kids’ test scores, and I have no doubt that test scores are increasingly affecting kids’ sense of self-worth. I was pleased to read that the State of New York is working to improve its standardized tests by eliminating “gotcha”-type multiple-choice questions and requiring use of a readable font. I hope that other states (like Tennessee) follow suit. As a kid, I was a “great test taker” who was good at those “gotcha” questions, but as an adult I’ve learned that multiple-choice tests can be a minefield for many  students who are well-prepared — particularly those with dyslexia or similar challenges. Making tests more straightforward is one small step toward reducing their tail-wagging-the-dog dominance of our school systems.

Share

Choices on how city government manages debt

On Monday evening, August 8, City Council is being asked to approve issuing $10 million in bonds for wastewater and water projects (see agenda). We absolutely need to borrow this money, but I have doubts about the staff’s plan for structuring the debt — that is, how we pay it back.

This is part of about $19 million that the city needs over the next couple of years to pay for sewer system improvements mandated by an EPA administrative order (estimated cost $14,567,000) plus some water system improvements ($4,150,000). The EPA order means we’ll have to increase sewer rates. City staff has proposed to pay this off over 20 to 25 years, and to limit the increases in sewer rates by delaying the maturity of the bonds until after most the city’s existing sewer debt is paid off. For the first 10 years, only $100,000 in principal would be paid off each year, and most of the principal would not be paid off until the late 2020s or even the 2030s, when huge chunks (principal amounts up to $2 million or more) would come due in a single year.

Borrowing for capital improvements is necessary to spread the cost of improvements over time, which is responsible, but this staff plan would shift the cost of today’s improvements to future decades, which I think is irresponsible. Also, the long pay-off  greatly increases the total cost by greatly increasing the interest. Under the staff plans, $10 million in bonds now would cost $17.5 million over 20 years or almost $20.5 million over 20 years. In the 20-year payoff plan, $8 million in principal and interest would come due the last 5 years of the 20-year period. Considering that these are improvements that cost $10 million in the first place, it appears that this is a structure whose main effect is shifting the costs to another generation.

I’ve made some spreadsheet tables (PDF file) comparing the staff’s plan for 20-year payoff with a plan that pays off equal amounts of principal each year (not a recommended structure for borrowing money, but it was useful to help me understand the choices involved in structuring this debt) and a modified version of that plan that somewhat evens out the annual principal-plus-interest. Under my “semi-level annual payments” plan, $10 million in bonds would cost $14.7 million — about $2.8 less than under the staff’s 20-year plan. In the first few years annual debt service for this bond issue would be only about $200,000 higher than under the staff’s 20-year plan (about $720,000 per year versus about $520,000 per year), and annual debt service would always be below $800,000 — compared with $2.2 million bills in 2031 and 2032 (for our kids and grandkids to pay!) under the staff plan.

Amazingly, the resolution Council is being asked to approve doesn’t specify how the bond issue would be structured — not even whether bonds must be sold at fixed rates or if variable-rate bonds could be used (I don’t believe anyone would endorse variable rate bonds). The resolution does specify that the city should be able to pay off or refinance the bonds after 2021, but otherwise Council is simply being asked to authorize staff and the mayor to issue bonds at legal interest rates and for not more than 25 years. We also are being asked to approve the bonds without first seeing any analysis of how these expenditures will affect sewer and water rates.

In these days when people are acutely aware of the impact of public debt, and when I consider that EPA has been telling us that the current improvements are needed to catch up with deferred maintenance — and that in the future the city will have to maintain a higher pace of sewer work than in the past, I think that we Oak Ridgers are going to have to “suck it up” and accept and acknowledge a big increase in the cost of doing wastewater business. We can’t assume that our kids and grandkids will happily pay off our needs 20 years from new — they likely will be facing new capital needs in the sewer and water arena, and if they aren’t, they should seize the opportunity to cover more of the system costs on a “pay as you go” basis.

Based on recent city financial reports, it seems that our wastewater system receives about $6 million annually in customer fees, so a rate increase of about 20% should bring in $1.2 million, which ought to cover the capital costs of this bond issue, along with other cost increases since the rates were last adjusted 3 years ago. Fortunately, it appears to me that Oak Ridge’s wastewater rates are lower than those of many other communities (for example, the Knoxville Utility Board residential wastewater charge for the first 2000 gallons is $18 in the city and $20.90 outside the city, compared with the Oak Ridge charge of $13.50 for the first 2000 gallons), which should make increases somewhat easier for customers to absorb (even if we don’t like them).

I fully expect that on Monday evening my fellow City Council members will vote to issue these bonds (they are necessary!), but I hope they will also agree to begin asserting some control over this one aspect of the city’s financial policies by:

  • Insisting on receiving a preliminary estimate of the effect of the wastewater work on sewer rates before we vote on the bond issue (so we have some idea of the impacts of what we are deciding on), including an analysis of how the difference between an initial payoff rate of $522K/yr (the staff’s 20-year plan) and a rate of $720K/yr (my “semi-level” 20-year plan) would impact rates.
  • Directing staff to issue these new bonds on a fixed-rate basis that spreads the annual cost out in roughly equal installments over a 20-year period (similar to my “semi-level” plan).

As always, citizen input on this matter would be helpful!

Note: Permission is given to republish the above material and the attached spreadsheet, as long as these items are attributed to me.

Share

Those City Council iPads

Oak Ridge wasn’t the first city to distribute agendas electronically, but somehow the New York Times got the impression that Cornelius, North Carolina, invented the idea of issuing iPads to City Council members instead of sending out paper agendas. They didn’t invent the idea… Oak Ridge City Council members were issued iPads last year, and City Manager Mark Watson says he used electronic agendas for years in the cities he served earlier.

At any rate, the NY Times article tells the “right story” on why Cornelius expects to save money. A similar story could be told about Oak Ridge: those iPads save a lot of paper and a lot of staff time. Another benefit is less wear and tear on the city’s photocopiers — and fewer emergency calls to technicians when a copier breaks down in the middle of agenda production. One difference between Oak Ridge and Cornelius has to do with the delivery of agendas: Cornelius was using police officers to deliver agenda packages to Council members, but Oak Ridge hasn’t done that sort of thing for some years now. (Before the iPads arrived, Council members had to go to city hall to pick up our paper agenda packages.) The iPad isn’t perfect for reading documents (in particular, it is inconvenient to navigate back and forth between documents, or to move quickly to different pages or sections within a document), but it works fine as a reader — and it is far more portable than those paper agenda packages used to be.

The Times article touches on a question that some Oak Ridgers have asked: Are the iPads playthings for Council members? The answer is “no”, in both Oak Ridge and Cornelius. Our Oak Ridge iPads are set up to download and read documents, read email, access the Internet (over a WiFi connection), and access an calendar. We don’t have access to the iTunes app store, so we can’t install other applications that aren’t related to City business. If you see me fooling with my iPad during a meeting, I’m not playing “Angry Birds.” Chances are good that I’m trying to navigate to a particular page of a city document.

Share