REP GRC 019 09/18/2012 2010-2012

Home

GRC-19 Page 2 September 18, 2012 Mr. Yoshimoto agreed with Ms. Ford and Mr. Yagong and stated that video testimony should be incorporated into our rules and should be treated like written testimony. Mr. Hoffmann agreed that it doesn't have to be viewed at the meetings and he will work on the rule change to allow video testimony to be treated like written testimony for councilmembers to review before meetings. At the July 31, 2012 meeting, Mr. Hoffmann moved to postpone Comm. 786/Res. No. 279-12 to the August 14, 2012 Governmental Relations Committee meeting. Due to technical difficulties at the August 14, 2012 meeting, all Committee items were postponed to the September 5, 2012 Governmental Relations Committee meeting. At the September 5, 2012 meeting, Mr. Hoffmann moved to amend Resolution 279-12 with the contents of Communication 786.1; seconded by Ms. Smart. Mr. Hoffmann stated that the amendment incorporates comments made by councilmembers. Ms. Ford stated that it is not clear that the video testimony would not be played at the committee or council meetings and that video testimony should say"pre-recorded"to clarify that it is not live streaming video. Mr. Hoffmann explained that he believed that was implied and did not need to be stated. Mr. Hoffmann believes it is clear that it would be pre recorded as it would be submitted just as is written testimony. Ms. Ford will.consider an amendment. Ms. Smart brought up the issue of server capabilities and suggested funding might be required to enable the County server to hold the video testimony which would take up memory space. Mr. Yoshimoto asked Mr. Hoffmann to explain the rationale behind having one person being able to submit testimony for up to five people. Mr. Hoffmann wanted to limit it to five people so as not to be too cumbersome.. Mr. Yoshimoto agreed with Ms. Ford that it should be made very clear that videos will not be played during meetings and recommended that each video be submitted by one individual,similar to written testimony and not allow up to five people on one video submission. Mr. Yoshimoto also expressed concerns that councilmembers may not have time to watch all the video testimony and that there is a chance that pre-recorded video testimony can be altered and hard to authenticate. While this is an extreme case, it is a possibility. Chair Pilago expressed concern that if up to five people can submit one video testimony would up to five people then be able to submit one written testimony as well? Would the rule regarding written testimony also have to be changed to be consistent? He also asked if there were some structural changes that would occur for Council Services to handle the video submission and stated that the measure has been brought forward prematurely. Ms. Ford agreed with Chair Pilago and would like to limit the submission to one person per video.