Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-10-2011 - 4ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: May 10, 2011 Action Agenda Item No. ~_ SUBJECT• Update on Automated Agenda Research DEPARTMENT: Information Technologies PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Attachment A: Aggregation of Board Feedback on Agenda Automation Attachment B: Function Gaps Found in Preliminary Analysis of Agenda Automation Solutions Attachment C: Draft Requirements as Provided to Vendors INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Jones, Information Technologies, (919) 245-2285 David Hunt, Clerk's Office, (919) 245- 2126 Greg Wilder, Manager's Office, (919) 245-2300 PURPOSE: To receive a brief report on the progress of researching automated agenda software and processes and provide an opportunity for discussion, questions, and feedback from the Board to staff and vice versa in order to give staff additional baseline information upon which to proceed with electronic/paperless agenda efforts. BACKGROUND: At the Board's March 17, 2011 budget work session, discussion occurred regarding the Board moving toward an electronic agenda process and eliminating the use of paper in conducting Board meetings. Based on that discussion, staff from several departments have since met and discussed the many aspects of this project. At the Board's meeting on April 12, 2011, staff presented high level decision points to the Board. These decision points elicited helpful discussion from the Board to further clarify requirements. After that meeting, staff distributed a survey to members of the Board to solicit further feedback from the Board on how members each envisioned the system operating from their, and the public's, vantage point. The Board's feedback to date has been received and is incorporated into the aggregation summary provided at Attachment A. Staff has been refining requirements on the agenda assembly side, researching market offerings for agenda automation and attending detailed demonstrations of these softwares. In the discussion of requirements, staff will present preliminary findings on the state of these packages and where some gaps may exist between requirements as outlined in the Attachment B - "Function Gaps Found in Preliminary Analysis of Agenda Automation Solutions". FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving this update. Depending on the solution chosen, the implementation costs of such a solution could range from $0 to $150K. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive the report and provide any additional feedback to staff. Agenda Automation Questions ~e u i s ~ o -~ - ~~,~,~ '_~ ~ i ('1 1'O, Zo 1 ~ Raae~ ~~a~~,,~~~~-~ ~ Items for Consideration in a Paperless Agenda Process The following questions are being asked of you to help us better understand your expectations of an automated agenda process and supporting toolset. Please provide your responses in the space provided under each question. Once we receive your responses, we will aggregate the replies into a statement of requirements. We will use these requirements, as well as those of staff (for the agenda preparation component of the project) to identify potential software packages for further evaluation and, in collaboration with the Board, to make a selection. While the methodical process of requirements gathering may take some time, we feel that it will help ensure a solution that is cost-effective, while meeting the needs of the various stakeholders, particularly members of the Board. I'd like to request this input be provided back to me by Monday, May 2"d. If you need more time, just let me know. If you have any questions or just need more information in order to provide a full response, please contact me (245-2285w / 245-1709m) at your convenience. Thanks! -Todd 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 1 of 14 Agenda Automation Questions 1) What goals does the Board have in mind for a paperless agenda process? There are many potential benefits to an automated agenda solution, including: reduction of paper consumed, easier access to related information and reduction in resources required to manage the agenda creation process. Understanding the Board's priorities will help ensure the right solution. Please list your goals for this system in priority order. 1. Efficiency in disseminating information. 2. Reduction of waste, particularly paper and staff time. 3. Better use of county resources, especially computers provided to BOCC. 4. Long-articulated goal of BOCC and closer to industry standard. 5. First three reasons all include cost saving: Reduction of paper consumed and hopefully making it easier for staff to create and edit the agenda. Reduction of staff resource usage Access to materials. Reduction on paper usage. 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 2 of 14 S Agenda Automation Questions 2) What is the anticipated usage rate for Board members and staff for paperless agendas? There are significant benefits to be gained with a wholesale use of paperless agendas by all meeting participants. However, partial adoption, in which staff supports both a paperless process and a legacy paper-based process can significantly erode or even eliminate those benefits with a net increase in staff time to support dual processes. Please tell us the likelihood of your relying solely on digital format for reviewing meeting materials and managing public meetings.. Feel free to explain conditions under which you would or wouldn't feel comfortable using such a system. Would use frequently. Lengthy or complex documents, or documents with large images that load slowly, are less desirable for paperless perusal. I am skeptical that occasionally providing some paper documents will significantly increase staff time spent on dual processes. I would be fine with relying solely on digital format for meeting materials with the exception of some colored maps and charts. I would like to have colored maps, especially those hard to read even on a printed normal page, printed on the larger size paper when appropriate. I would use paperless options exclusively. If necessary, I would print selected pages for my own use. 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 3 of 14 Agenda Automation Questions 3) What screen size is deemed optimal for viewing on-line agenda materials? A large screen tends to be optimal for viewing detailed images (such as SAPFO charts, budget spreadsheets and complex GIS maps) and multiple agenda items, while smaller screens such as those on iPads and laptops maybe inadequate for detailed images. However, larger screens limit the portability of devices and can create a visual barrier between elected officials and the public. It may not be practical for you to provide a specific screen size. However, please share your thoughts are on issues of portability, visual intrusiveness, size and screen clarity. If we did a better job of training BOCC members in use of Word and laptops, presumably they could learn to adjust text and screen size to some effect. More comment on this in following answers. Detailed images can still be projected at meetings, as with paper agendas. I think that most materials display fine on a laptop screen. However, not having experience with numerous paperless agendas and not having experienced a wide range of material, I cannot as of yet adequately respond. Again, I think the issue is specific maps and perhaps some charts. I think that printing a few such items would require minimal printing. I am happy with my current 12" screen for most purposes. Easy magnification of some pages with multiple windows accessible would be helpful. 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 4 of 14 Agenda Automation Questions 4) How would viewing hardware be handled? Would Board members use their existing laptops and bring them to each meeting? Would Board members prefer to use small screen touch pad devices, such as iPads? How would Board members envision meetings with other deliberative bodies (Boards of Health, Social Services, Planning; Quarterly Public Hearings; other local governing bodies, e.g., Towns of Chapel Hill, Mebane, Hillsborough)? Would they be compelled to bring laptops or would the County provide these? Providing access devices beyond what is currently available could potentially cost more than the system software and attendant servers. Please share your thoughts on pros and cons of bringing your laptops to meetings versus having equipment available for you at each meeting site. Also discuss how you envision others (staff, the public and other governing bodies with whom you meeT) would access agenda materials. I have no experience with iPads so I cannot comment on preference. A demonstration might be useful. I would bring my laptop. No, would not compel other boards to do anything different at this point. Can encourage members of boards meeting with BOCC to access our digital materials and bring their own devices if they prefer. Laptops at regular meetings. with public can create a visual barrier when the screen is up, a distinct disadvantage in current arrangements, particularly at DSS. I have no interest in dealing with different machines at different locations. I don't like the idea of having to bring a laptop to each meeting. I might have to leave a laptop in a hot car all day, forget, etc. Of course, this makes it hard for the county at present since we have multiple meeting areas. I am willing to do it for the short-term. If we had a regular meeting area, I wouldn't mind brining a laptop to occasional meetings such as those with the towns. I think an iPad might be too small but I have no personal experience with an iPad. I would hope that staff would also access agenda materials through digital media. What to do about Planning Board members and Quarterly Public Hearings is a question for which I don't have a clear response. I am not excited about the idea of paying for equipment for all the Planning Board members simply for Quarterly Public Hearings, but given that we also meet with other boards, we could perhaps have laptops that are used for each of these special meetings. As for other governing bodies, I don't think it is for us to determine how they access agenda material. If we have digital media, then we can certainly offer them access to it. Most of the time it is Orange County that develops the agenda. We could also offer the use of laptops at 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 5 of 14 Agenda Automation Questions the meeting for those who might want to use it -the same laptops we would have for the Planning Board and other boards with whom we meet jointly. I would like to have some ideas about how other board handle this. I find it hard to respond without having some suggestions since this is not the area of expertise for BOCC members. So long as other bodies have timely access to electronic agendas and materials, it would be at their option to either bring appropriate hardware or provide paper materials to their members. I do not think equipment (unless permanently installed) should be supplied for meetings. It is no harder to bring a laptop than it is to bring a printed agenda. Public access could be provided by large-screen display of agenda items (maybe). 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 6 of 14 l Agenda Automation Questions 5) What would the default media be? There are potentially different methods for creating and displaying agenda items, depending on whether paper or digital display is considered. For example, digital delivery allows for direct hyperlinking to historical minutes or video footage of background material. Paper does not. Due to the inherent inefficiencies of authoring two parallel versions of each abstract, it would be important to determine which medium would be considered the default for authoring and delivery. Please share your thoughts on your willingness to use the digital format as the default target media, to leverage hyperlinking benefits, potentially at an inconvenience to those relying on paper to access the information. Default would be on line with hyperlinks if that is BOCC standard. I don't see why this is a problem; the citation can be imbedded in a printed document without being active as a link. We don't usually provide a full agenda to everyone attending a meeting and could post the digital version on the Web site for all to access. This is yet another case of making things seem more difficult and complex than necessary. I would prefer having the digital media be the default because of the advantages of creating the hyperlinks. We should take full advantage of available technology. Hyperlinking -yes. The default should be a digital format 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 7 of 14 Agenda Automation Questions 6) What viewing and annotation features are needed? We assume the Board values easy navigation, with a table of contents available at all times to allow quick navigation to different agenda items. We assume the Board requires the ability to scroll through items independently of one another. We assume the Board desires a way to insert bookmarks on items to which they want to frequently refer. We assume the Board requires a mechanism for making annotations. Please share your thoughts on: • independent navigation so each Board member can scroll independently • the ability to insert bookmarks in items for quick reference • the need for a persistent hyperlinked table of contents to move from item to item (or even from one attachment to another) • .making digital annotations in the materials Want all of the above. Ability to create "instant" bookmarks to enable immediate return to previous item.viewed. Each of the listed times is necessary. Consistent with the attorney's opinion, the ability to store (at least for some fixed period beyond the end of each meeting) an independent copy of the agenda and any annotations made by a commissioner. Is IM equivalent to email? Or equivalent to a telephone conversation? 1~ 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 8 of 14 Agenda Automation Questions 7) How are annotations handled? Would individual Board members' annotations be considered part of the digital record of each meeting? Would a single annotations field for an entire agenda item suffice? Or would Board members prefer to annotate on the documents themselves, the digital equivalent of hard copy markup? Would those annotations only be viewable by the individual Commissioner who made them? Or would they become viewable among all Board members? Please share your thoughts on how each Commissioners annotations could be handled. Should they be private? Shared among the Board? Subject to public disclosure? Local to your laptop? Embedded in the server data for access from any computer as you login? Private. Separate. Local. Either that, or I'll stick with handwritten notes. Annotations should be private and not part of the record. Annotations should attach to (but not be part of) the item being annotated. Embedded in the server. There should be a method to make comments public and accessible (e.g. a modified motion). 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 9 of 14 Agenda Automation Questions 8) Can Board members' current Internet connections support paperless agendas? Given the need for Board members to access agenda items from home or on the road, will their current connectivity support access large agendas? IT can work with the individual Board members to assess this, but dial-up and AirCard connections will probably prove to be inadequate to support efficient access or download of these materials. In some Board members' homes, there is a verified lack of available broadband options. There maybe other options, such as delivery of "flash" or USB drives. However, this would of course, eliminate cost savings of no longer delivering paper agendas. Share your thoughts on the need to access agenda materials in places without an adequate broadband connection. CenturyLink DSL coverage is unreliable but adequate when working. AirCard is slow but supports a-mail. USB drive backup might eliminate some cost saving, but still does not require paper or collation. As stated, sounds worse than it is. I have no problem with downloading materials in advance. I would rather that IT work with the Board members to ensure sufficient connectivity at home and avoid all the personal deliveries. We need to work to ensure adequate bandwidth to ALL county residents. USB drives would serve as a reasonable alternative to those board members without broadband Internet access. Not all members would need delivery service l Z- 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 10 of 14 [3 Agenda Automation Questions 9) Will Board members endorse the resources needed to support this technology? Information Technologies support will be needed before, during and after meetings in which this technology is used. Further, support will be necessary for the environment in which the public accesses data and for general database administration. Also, if the chosen solution is an end-to-end agenda creation through distribution and archiving solution, resources will be needed to support the authoring and workflow environment. These various duties together could approach a single FTE in required resources. Finally, the Board members themselves will need to arrive early if the chosen solution leverages their laptops, so those machines can be verfied as functional. A not to exceed cost limit may help in selecting the best solution. Please share your thoughts on providing additional staff resources needed to successfully support this technology. I want to see a strategic plan, with priorities and costs given to various IT possibilities, before making any comments on resource allocation. This persistent ad hoc approach to major IT decisions is opaque and unsatisfactory. I would like to know what is the cost and benefit of a paperless agenda. If we save staff time of some individuals and need to add staff, I want to know what is the net staff time savings. I also want to know what the savings would be of paper versus the technology costs. Without such information, I cannot say what resources I will support. How much and when? Additional resources in IT would need to be balanced by savings in other departments. Such savings would accrue in agenda preparation? 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 11 of 14 1 q- Agenda Automation Questions 10) Will hard copies still be available for the public, the Board and staff? This could potentially erode cost savings otherwise realized through print reduction. The current practice is to not provide paper agenda packages to the public. Share your thought on how members of the public not equipped to read on-line agendas might still be served. I would continue whatever policy we have now for providing paper agendas to those without on-line capabilities. Cost reduction imperatives should not supercede public access. This would seem a relatively small problem. The public, at present, does not receive hard copies of the agenda, only the cover sheet. I am not sure what the question here is regarding the public. I think that staff should be required to use digital format. As for the Board, I would like us to encourage all members to use digital format and provide the training if needed. However, I don't yet feel comfortable making it a requirement for Board members. Since hardcopy agendas are not provided to the public, a change to paperless would not affect current practice. Paperless should be better organized and easier to usefor the public, who now must access online anyway. Board members, staff, and public would have the option to print selected portions of the agenda materials. 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 12 of 14 lS Agenda Automation Questions 11) Will Board members need the ability to print entire agenda package on demand? Existing printer technology provided for Board members' home offices are generally not adequate for printing the large volumes associated with our agenda packages. This capability will require upgrades of County provided printers. Please share your thoughts on whether or not you think you'll need to print out individual items from the agenda, or entire agendas. If you are disinclined to use the digital delivery system at all (Question #2), would you be willing to do the printing from home, if properly equipped with ahigh-volume color printer? I use my own printer. Printing on demand seems to defeat the purpose of having a paperless agenda. If the Board member does not want digital format, then I think that they can continue to receive paper copies as they do now. I would be willing to print out a particular item on the agenda from home but would probably only print a very limited number of pages No need to provide printed copies of entire agenda package. 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 13 of 14 r~ Agenda Automation Questions 12) Any other questions, concerns or feedback? Please share with us any additional issues you think should be considered as we research agenda automation solutions. I wish staff had followed through years ago on the directive from chair, vice chair, and manager to institute an annual Commissioner Computer Wellness Program. This was meant to monitor the functionality of county machines, upgrades of security and other software, and provide an opportunity for one-on-one tutorials and Q&A. Still would like to see this happen. Had it been put into place when directed, we would have a more computer-literate board and a transition to paperless agenda might be more intuitive and seamless. I would like to have more information based on others' experience and information on net costs/savings and whether the net cost/saving depends on the implementation plan. 5/10/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 14 of 14 Agenda Automation Attachment B Functional Gaps in Current Commercial Agenda Automation Solutions Preliminary Findings May 3, 2011 Information Technologies Background A group of County staff from Information Technologies, the Manager's Office and the Clerk's Office have been reviewing software requirements for Agenda Automation. The group has also participated in several detailed vendor demonstrations. At this group's request, vendors tailored their demonstrations around the list of functional requirements generated by the group. The research to date has shown there are several promising software solutions that will meet many of the requirements we have presented. However, there remain some areas where these requirements may be met, but not in a satisfying fashion. Although this research continues, and a complete solution may yet emerge, we wanted to give you preliminary fmdings. Navigation Layouts We anticipate the Board and the public will want a hyperlinked outline of a meeting agenda in a persistent window within the computer screen, while the item being presently reviewed will show in the main body of the window, as mocked up below: 17 BOCC Meeting May 10, 2011 Page 1 Agenda Automation Attachment B 18 2.Public Comments oi~-r~~~ colrwrY 3. Petitions by Board ~"'"~ °`~ ~°`""~'~g1°u~ Members (Three Minute act~~ta ~~~la~ iT,"~ sr~Y i 15 01 i , 2 l ~9eai+ng i7lrRrea k.pr Limit Per Commissioner) Action A~e;!a~da ~~rst:. ~ 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ ` ecial Presentations S SitBJECT< wcr>,cc r3un~tr~ C4s~tx~ Pxr,~r~~ Aya~rd fir ~~ ib9~nty'S G9t?n~ty p „~,~~ Fn~nraxn a. Proclamation Honoring : $Y1t1} t~lo !G H~F1tF~' PiJBt Dr. Neil Pedersen _ x €3EPA7#77AEFIT: Aauamai Sar~i~ s~a~ b. County Health Rankings: ,~rrn~cH~n~r~s~- lnlFOrx~irtora cr~r~cr MobillZin~ Action Toward AppCcetaan for 209iI Oubcendir~ Garar~tyr [)als Ma'~aft~, Anirnnl van'ire~~ Utt~'c5ar ' ~~-227 Prretrr Awar~I Community Health Report way Gas4on, ~~cl~l rwi~t ~Irect>€rr: c. NCACC Outstanding 245-26UL County Program Award for Orange County's Community Spay/Neuter Program _ - _ __ _._ - ........ . Resolution Re;:ardin~ d ~a~©se. Far one ~ ~~ °`~~°r, ~ c'~r'tY c°"~t"i~r~ tw~~ a>i' ~ar~ ~ [ l S t 1 . }rt ma o rsc~Urat~n cr. t'tatK3 ral ~crarrty Goanemtnerkt fa~tontl~ to ahe Gountg aaN Planned Uses of Revenues ~A r°~ ~~ ~~ 'l l~Pat~nents witfr ~ ~~#7 Qut~~vhdit?g r,~un~y Prsigr~ri,4war~ icr lh~ C;:_~unhrt's Cans~tutsigr ~pay~NQrter~r~rem, from a Potential One-Quarter ' Cent (1/4¢1 County Sales and ~ co~n"r~' ~~e r$>Rt '~~ ~et~r bx a I~,'`cxo~°u~6. gre"~~ c°'~rn~` disiiinpuiah~ed oana9 esau;fpas frnrn aexzlsa Nctth Csrtt~:ra tar one of NCA~C's2f11t3 iDatiatateciin Use Tax Gtr' Prcg*a!n Arwardd: fps a winning prraun in too catagory at Human cuerv5, €)range ~pur^Ey~S C+~rrtmpniSy ~p3t~dTieuter prpgra~ Will i3r~ fieaCUr~d irr the IhWnl iSv!S+! ~ tyr5tfrrlv~5e#. 5. Consent Agenda ~'~~~~"° "~°'"''~ p"a~rr• a. Minutes 7tttt Animal Ord $e~ial rvi~;e €3~partnsnts app~d fdr °.he 201 C1 outstanding G~€niy Prtar~ravat b. A ointments -None PP '~ ~m the wcAcc tea an ~~`~ imt~lertM~fiott at ~ tf*h and isrlricelC v~~~trl~ p°~sgrari that x~as can=.fully d~elq with the taelp at rs`or SOY years, Thy tr+rs~gra~1 c. Motor Vehicle Property iistitrn ~ etiached. Tax Release/Refunds ;ara~tane ~~ ftre ?munity ~~apthirutr~r ~rsrdrarr! ;~ ~e creab~, ~~ ~ sn~=-+.~r partnership ts; tween C?•g:°- Gr~urtg3+~s rirnn,,t S~•tis pgartrnrnt, the DeRa~lrr~nk art :~r#Ciat d. Property Tax Releases sirr~ ~assj and PcnimealKind, ~ •s-:~~~ ~s rr~ri~prcld ~organiz~,Yi~et de~diyatfd to tare,~Eed and/or Refunds straye'`neurer for &:w-inoame n=sidens_ Thais interataite rirership arrd its. outrames avere tfw_ ~:,b}g~ ~ ~ ~e~taiiian ay anal tires rrlatf t4 ec~cc ~t its Fury rta3etir,~ t~ e. Applications for Property ~hi~,ai ~i~s• ~r~~i~,~~~ <<.~~~.~,~.,.?~~~~~~s,~ -.-~.rrr~~r•K ~~~~. Tax Exemption/Exclusion .= portrroarrkrp ~rdrra~ ~~:~ ~, -.tea ~F~~ 1LrrGm~l~,iz~sd'~ •~t spa =i>~•,>,~~ ~~,., ~1.~_h ~~~~ stuali°~rinc3 rttrstnbcrs nt ttc pirt7lic `.he oppcetunity taa havo the cats a~ GKr'~5 spay= d Ynr neastered f. Tax Collector's Settlement Due to Retirement g. Renewal of Consolidated Agreement Between Health Department and NC Department of Health and Human Services None of the packages reviewed to date have a demonstrated mechanism for supporting this kind of display. There are ways, but they require a significant amount of manual work for each agenda packet. BOCC Meeting May 10, 2011 Page 2 Agenda Automation Attachment B Annotations All of the packages reviewed provide an annotation mechanism. However, none reviewed to date provide a built in system for putting the digital equivalent of "sticky notes" as envisioned in the example below: ORANGE COIfNTY >9WRP Ur; t4NNrSSipNSrtS A<TtON AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Mrtagng Dab: Rprd :9, 2Dit _ Adios Agenda Itara Na $'C SUB.eECT: N..ACC Out~;anding GaSerAy Pratir~n R'w~d Mr6rx~ge Caar~s Gotrgxuangy SpeuFNztaea? DEPARTMENT: AAVmaf Sseiues. PUS HEA~NG: {Y~ : 4i_ O i Saxat Serviaas ATTAG}NdENT(b'I: DiFQRMATtQl1 CONTACT: f PP4cvt%r~ Tor PoiG PuWfendmA' ~'hl` Doh 4b:oria..ln'urrml Gerwiwa D'areGat, Prcy-ara nw~~d 96&2287 Nsalsy Garton 5tieb15erviots OiTador, Za6 [602 PURPOSE: For the Naflr CaroAna Asaows8on d' Coump CPrrxrpsaianzrc {NC0.C0) as part ofi as +rasan r# ttartlnrsal GwmT 6m.~aneta seams ~ pTaSBEm are Gaumy end mra JlnpnaE Se: ticcs 5o~-Imi S~viaes CMS wins a 2iiTD ~i~anwng Gonnty p~raea Av~itl nrr #N CnanlY'a Ca>K+unaY SpaylNect...a~ Pragiam, aacK,.saauND: orange *-~+r'• con~nannx x a dis#mguistrd easel o€}aaaes [ram acrass.Na4h Ca~ok: I$ th1S 'no Cdcc?Iy Ph54ran? a"Mtls. Re a W@enirr9 praWane in .. CaaxnVs Co!mraml% SpaytNeular tm7e tidlt be Iea ~g~,e ._ sxACC'c mo dnN Ruhieation. "ftlo Ani~1 seatl Sh~iat Se!vicoi Oapartine~ aPpied. ~ tarn Aiwam Iran the N~rC eased drf correct . pra!2ram that was carefuky devdo'~+s¢ ... . h. appl'vation's ntlxhed. 1~it tarU,cT,s o1 the Commurr~ Sp?YRVisutw Pl~ram a Ins e~sas d a titres-wsy pa.Anr=9nip l.,ePaezn Orrgo CauricVs tuemai Sentieas Depe~k6erN. Nre Dolmr+etenl a0 &ac4M 5eeaxoea {D551 and AnirmalKand, a Traaaoased oarxpFO€G crganQapon dadi~ted Ca taT9aWa spay'naU"sr -or ivw.inwrre maiden's. This interec4va gaihaershR aed ds o~tcomea earn? Nra su~jar" M a ~er_ :fates tits As4:msf Sat"rias slab tai ihr 80CC as iR F~rs+sry maetc~B lees. Rn~.ai5~~,ax paymo.:ter+.<+~a~~a±!..zc..x!ra'~ez_ "~ti_Malrr~rae~~..a-w.?l~ Taw partnervhip ineludaa owtl io bnnetl upon As.aaaiYraa's °Ftre 6_^G f-aC Pmgvm, a+.?Nr O>fore auali!~ng mamtafs oltlse pt~lit tiro dpoalar~ ap has'e N+c eak e.!YS Saga spapxal ar nauSe+tetl Further, most packages don't support a convenient mechanism for retaining these comments with Logins. In most systems examined, these comments remain on the hard drive of the computer on which they were made. This would prove problematic for Board members wishing to make annotations from their home laptops that would be visible on computers set up in the chamber. Preliminary research indicates great promise for other requirements in an Agenda Automation system. Staff seeks input as to the criticality of the requirements for which preliminary findings indicate gaps. 19 BOCC Meeting May 10, 2011 Page 3 Agenda Automation Project /~~a~"~'"~ Agenda Automation What is it? Agenda Automation is a group of technologies to streamline the process of creating and distributing agendas for public meetings. Solutions typically include mechanisms for creating agenda templates, a workflow engine for routing abstracts through the approval chain and making agenda items available for staff, elected officials and the public. What are success criteria? The expectation of a successful solution is a system that: • Simplifies the abstract authoring process • Increases approval efficiencies • Yields time savings in the preparation of agenda packets, and easier access for the public • Provides greater public access to agenda items • Provides public with agenda archives presented with links into corresponding video and minutes for comprehensive view of these items and all available relevant records. Roles Information Technologies -County staff members charged with technical implementation of the system and ongoing maintenance of the underlying operating environment Agenda Item Author -County staff member responsible for researching, assembling and authoring one or more items for consideration during a formal BOCC public meeting. Workflow Manager -County staff member overseeing workflow and capable of modifying workflow rules to allow exceptions. Also responsible for defming and maintaining workflow rules, abstract templates and publishing rules. BOCC Agenda Consumers -Elected officials charged with considering agenda items and providing direction to staff on the fulfillment of said items Public -members of the community, locally and globally, interested in the agenda items Agenda Automation Concept County staff will develop agenda item authoring templates. These templates will guide authors of agenda items through the agenda format. County staff will also define workflows to determine how items get routed through various approval stages. Each workflow step will have time buffers and email alerts to trigger reminders and ensure a high-level view of the timeline of any given item. After successful routing of the individual items, the aggregate package is published to the Internet, with appropriate versions (password protected and not) for BOCC, staff and the public. 20 5/6/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 1 21 Agenda Automation Project Agenda Item Authoring Requirements • Must allow flexibility in abstract template design County seal, section headers, boilerplate text, required/optional sections • Must allow hyperlinking to previous agenda items, minutes or web pages This will help streamline referencing supporting historical materials • Must allow attachments of any file type, or allow administrative constraints of file attachment types. File types may need to be declared so that end user knows what software is needed for viewing. • Some file types may require automated conversion into a format with wide compatibility (e.g., PowerPoint to PDF) • System must allow author to pick meeting for which the item is targeted in workflow. System must only show meetings for which time allows, given workflow time lags • Must allow designation of items for closed session. This designation automatically feeds package generation, creating different packages for staff, elected officials and the public Agenda Item Routing Requirements • Must allow administrative level definition ofitem-routing rules Must allow different item types or different attachment types (e.g., contracts) to trigger different routing paths • Must allow definition of workflow step time buffers, so that each step in the workflow has enough time to complete in time for release to BOCC and public • Should integrate with email system to alert reviewers of a pending item, send reminders to reviewers as they approach their deadline • Submitter should be allowed to add additional review steps anywhere in the workflow • Submitter should be able to be constrained from deleting steps in workflow • Submitters must be able to view status in workflow at any time • Submitters should be advised of workflow progress through email, including warnings of critical workflow deadlines as they approach • Workflow should be able to be configured to alert agenda managers when certain items are missing critical workflow steps • Agenda managers should be able to approve an entire package for release to staff, or BOCC or to public. Once approved, distribution should be automatic, through webpages (secured in the case of staff and BOCC access). • Entire system should allow approver delegation • Workflow should support administrative overrides • Approvers should be able to accept, reject or make changes (with administrative controls to allow changes to flow through, or require originator to review changes) • Approvers should be able to clearly annotate questions, comments and recommended changes • Any rejections or changes can be configured in workflow to alert originator and/or interim reviewers Agenda Preparers Requirements • Should have control over templates and authoring mechanisms 5/6/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 2 Agenda Automation Project • Should be able to define workflow associated with meeting type • Should be able to define roles and associated access levels within system • Should be able to define time buffers associated with workflow stages • Should be able to define publishing rules associated with agenda item types (e.g., suppress public publishing of closed session items) • Should be able to easily define meeting types and times with associated workflow, and authoring templates • Should be able to see comprehensive status of all agenda items from a single screen • Should be able to publish all versions to web with as few steps as possible. E Agenda Consumer Requirements • Must provide web-based view of overall agenda • Must provide a "Print Everything" button, which can include hyperlinked items • Must provide means of opening individual agenda items • Agenda items must provide hyperlinks into archival minutes, agendas, and web materials included by author. • Interface for elected officials should include o easy "browseability" o simple way to include annotations o simple way to put in bookmarks o easy navigability • Public's web based browsing should be: o easy to use o support a wide number of browsers o not show closed session items Process Requirements • Once approved for public review, agenda should be easy to link to Granicus video index and once available, to minutes index • Administrative overrides should be allowed for items stuck in workflow • System must allow delegation, so that approvers anticipating non-availability can designate alternative reviewers. System Requirements • System should integrate with Microsoft Active Directory for ease of credential management and email account verification • Access levels should be assignable via role base permission system • System should be configurable to allow approvers inside or outside County network • System can integrate w Granicus • System can integrate with MCCI Minutes Index • System can upload archival agendas • System can be either hosted remotely or locally, as long as integrations are fully supported. • Locally hosted systems should be SQL based and run on standard County server models. 22 5/6/2011 Orange County Information Technologies Page 3