As we discussed earlier this week, the city council Finance and Budget committee is considering the feasibility of broadcasting city council and committee meetings.
We had expected the topic to be covered in the local rags this week, but if they did cover it, we can't find it.
Our sources tell us there may be two city staffers who are still walking around upright! They've done some excellent research into the costs, technical requirements, and scope of televising city council and committee meetings. We are shocked, SHOCKED, at this revelation! No we're not. We are aware of these two particular city staffers, and we shall protect their identities by not naming them here because we would hate to see their good work rewarded with more work.
From the research that has been conducted, we hear the cost may be less than originally estimated; original estimates were in the $70,000.00 - $75,000.00 range, but the staffers proposal is in the $50,000.00 range. And, the scope of coverage may be greater than mere broadcasting of meetings; not only can the city council chamber be wired, but also the mayor's conference room, the public works service center and the fire department.
Broadcasting could include city council and committee meetings, and the city could broadcast emergency messages or something arty, like local concerts.
The recorderings would be archived on the city's website so that the 1o people in Park Ridge suspected of being interested in city doings could access the tapes. The broadcasts could be searchable through a menu option.
There are two aldermorons said to be less than enthusiastic about the idea. Care to guess who they are? Yes, Benedict-Alderman Robert Ryan (5th), and Thomas Carey the Unfriendly Ghost (6th). Their concerns are purported to be about the cost and how few (or how many?) Park Ridge citizens may actually watch.
While the roughly $50,000,000.00 city budget is always a matter for concern, because there isn't anything politicians and bureaucrats like better than spending the taxpayer's money, we feel the estimated $50,000.00 would be worth the expenditure for what appears to be available in the scope of this project.
Come on city council! Give the residents of Park Ridge the gift of learning what it is you do every couple of weeks!
October 25, 2007
Smile for the Camera!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I was reading the Journal yesterday with all the speculation as to who you (Park Ridge Underground) really is. A lot of my folks are telling me that you are none other than the old Homeowners party.
"If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." Mark Twain
We have to admit, we are enjoying the buzz.
1. While we can debate whether televising the meetings will make a meaningful difference, I would point out that some aldermen want to move things in the other direction. Specifically, there is a movement afoot to allow aldermen to attend--and vote at!--meetings by phone. If these guys are afraid to face their constituents when they vote, they shouldn't be on the Council. If the backbreaking schedule of meetings is too much for them, they shouldn't be on the Council. Absentee voting is fine for general elections, not for action taken by elected representatives.
Hmmmm..... Maybe televising is a good idea. Then the people would know who doesn't care enough about his public obligation to even make the meetings.
2. As for PRU being the old HO party, there's no way that bunch of fossils could have enough going on to pull off something like PRU.
Who cares about who is operating Park Ridge Underground? If it's increasing public awareness and interest in local government, then it's a good thing. If not, then it's just another distraction that people will, and should, ignore.
But on the topic of broadcasting meetings, it's long overdue. Local government can only get better when the voters can see for themselves what's going on at meetings they can't attend, rather than relying on the sketchy, incomplete and often "sanitized" meeting minutes, or the equally flawed news articles written by "reporters" who often start glancing at their watches a half-hour into a meeting.
I feel that the local papers do not always report openly on issues. With the Underground it is ALL OUT IN THE OPEN!!!
Flattering to be sure. Though we've got to say, there is a ton we do not discuss for many reasons. The most important reason being, the protection of our sources.
We can also tell you, we don't print a thing without having 3 independent sources, which is a real pain in the ass to accomplish sometimes, but it's the bar we set when we began.
I can't say I know if the paper gets things wrong or right because I can't get to the meetings enough to know. That is why I think this broadcasting of meetings is a good idea, because then I can see for myself.
Not only will the public benefit from the live broadcast, but the creation of a video archive can be invaluable as an antidote for the revisionist history our public officials like to engage in when things they supported don't turn out so well.
Like when we finally found out that the $650,000 Peotone airport money was gone for good and Ald. DiPietro moaned about how he and the Council were misled on the deal. As someone who sat through the meetings leading up to the Council's "investment" it would be
instructive to once again watch all the alder-bobbleheads rubber stamp the deal with hardly a tough question about it among them.
Good point, Mr. Kovic. And the 2005 Peotone report that concluded the money was gone found that the City did not even have anything in writing about getting its money back.
Besides DiPetro, the aldermen who rubber-stamped (on 11/4/02) the give-away of the last $400,000 of the $650,000 were: Mike Tinaglia, Craig Tomassi, John Benka, Sue Bell, Andrea Bateman, Sue Beaumont, Mark Fishman, Steve Huening, Dawn Disher, Mike Marous, Frank DePaul and Frank Bartolone. Larry Friel was absent for that meeting.
Well done, people!
Excuse my lack of knowlege. I am new to some of the things being talked about here.
Can you explain what you are talking about with Peotone? From your comment it looks to be a 5 year old topic.
Talk about missing money. The City claims to be broke but spent upwards of $30,000 to stop nine CSO's from forming a Union. Now instead of 9 Union members,they now have 39 NEW UNION members.
The Peotone "investment" is indeed 5 years old, but the disclosure that it was an irretrievable waste of $650,000 of our tax dollars - and that it was approved by a bunch of go-along-to-get-along aldermen who didn't even get a signed document guarantying the refund rights they used to justify it - occurred just 2 years ago.
And it's relevant to what's going on in the Council today because (a) Ald. Rich DiPietro, who was one of the Peotone go-alongers, is still on the Council; and (b) the go-along-to-get-along mentality can end up costing us far more than the ridiculous $650,000 Peotone deal.
Got it?
With a town and its loonies
operating it - it a no brainer why they ( the blue shirts ) wanted a union.
My old Irish grandma once stated " The unions are the work of the devil".
Be afraid here.
I think Flak jackets are in order for all future city meetings.
To Anon@9:09^^
We know you must have meant that in a figurative way, not literally.
As pissed as we can be about the aldermopes, never is it okay to make any threats against them.
Watch your step here.
The PRU Crew
It saddens me to see the town so divided - yet when the bell rings
during tough times they - come together.
Let not those unwanted folks - divide us.
Whatever the problem we can work it out - despite the division.
Can someone please tell me - who are we...and who is they ? The PRcrew ?
Are the dems or repubs ?
Post a Comment