Chapel Hill may disband two boards

Would it be possible for existing committees to manage/study Carolina North issues? I know it's a huge project, but in smaller chunks, the Planning, Transportation, etc. boards might be able to sort through the requests like they do for other developments. However, the same arguement, I think, does not apply to the technology committee. Is there any speculation that UNC IT staff are making a greater contribution to the town's IT development? Will there be additional town IT staff hired?

Sent just a few moments ago...

April 6, 2006
Mayor Kevin Foy
Town Hall
405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-5705

Subject: Status of Technology and Horace Williams Citizens Committees (R-10, R-11)

Dear Mr. Mayor:

It has come to my attention that you have brought forth a proposal to conclude the service of the Horace Williams Citizens Committee and the Technology Committee to the Town of Chapel Hill. Though I serve on neither of these committees, I consider their areas of focus to be among the most important to the future of our community. The continued existence of these committees in some form is absolutely essential in order to tackle issues in the respective realms.

While there have been new developments in the past several months which lend additional input to the both committees, namely the new UNC-based committee on Carolina North led by Ken Broun, and Laurin Eastom's request for a public forum on the issue of a municipal network in Chapel Hill, I hope it is recognized that neither of these supplant the purposes of their respective boards.

Neither the HWCC nor the Technology Committee have “completed their mission,” as there will continue to be new developments in both arenas for decades to come.

Until the Carolina North project has reached its final stage of completion, there will continue to be a need for citizen input to ensure that not just the planning but the execution of the development are done in a way that conform to the strict environmental and neighborhood standards which are core to our community. The creation of a separate committee by the University does not negate the need for the town to continue to receive citizen input to influence their own decision making.

Likewise, Chapel Hill is visibly behind on their technology infrastructure. We are in desperate need of continued work in the areas of technology acquisition, a unified security policy, a useable and complete town website, and the integration of new technological advances into nearly every town department. Additionally, the consideration of a town-wide municipal wireless network, the hopeful eventual switch from proprietary to open source software, and the use of technology to better promote openness in local government present a number of challenges for which citizens' input will continue to be valuable for many years ahead.

I ask that you do not consider dismissing the service of two of Chapel Hill's most important committees without first developing a plan, in conjunction with the membership of both committees, to ensure that their goals will continue to be met with citizen input. If there is not an alternate plan in place for accepting citizen input in these two areas, I can only feel puzzled at a request to cease their existence.

Respectfully yours,
Jason Baker
Chapel Hill

This strikes me as the kind of move that has to have a "behind-the-scenes" rationale. Seems pretty precipitous to me. Anyone know, or care to speculate?

The lack of vision for how technology can support town services beyond email and word processing is the problem the council needs to deal with. Yes, the tech committeee has problems, but the biggest problem is the lack of responsiveness of town staff to efforts to move beyond the technology stone age.

Universities and corporations of any size have a chief information officer (CIO) reports directly to the CEO/Chancellor. I'd like to see a county-wide CIO who would report to the 4 elected bodies instead of to the town/county managers. That wouldn't change the town staffing needs because current staff would continue to manage the website and tech support.

The other benefit I see to having a countywide CIO is the economies of scale that can be achieved for growing the infrastructure. In defense of town IT staff, they must always compete for funding with other vital services such as police. Because of the small scale operations of the towns, the costs to upgrade/create infrastructure to a level where it can be effectively built upon for the future is simply too expensive. By going to a countywide infrastructure, we can bring access to rural areas and improved access to the urban areas while maintaining support staff at local level.

Then I think Ruby's suggestion for the newly reconstituted technology committee to report to the town's information officer makes a lot of sense because its purpose becomes how to use technology rather than how to build an infrastructure without any funding or political support.

Ruby,
Thanks for the information. I was wondering 'out loud' if that was a possible intent of terminating the HWCC.

Terri,
A county wide position for IT sounds like a good idea.

I wonder how town council members will react to the proposed termination of the committees.

Marc

The most striking aspect of this, to me, is that lack of an attached plan for restructuring in order to continue to receive citizen input in these two areas.

Certainly there is room for improvement in the way we approach technology as a town, but abandoning the current committee without first deciding on an alternate plan for structuring input is ludicrous. Who better to enumerate the barriers towards progress in the current structure and means for sidestepping these problems than those who are currently facing them, the Tech Committee?

As for the HWCC, I feel strongly that we should take advantage of this opportunity to approach a development with a committee which considers all aspects of the process simultaneously. Placing it solely under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, for example, is to place upon them an enormous burden outside of their specified focus. While I have confidence in the Planning Board's ability to explore aspects beyond just land use planning, I think it would be more appropriate to continue a separate committee which considers transportation, land use planning, environmental concerns, affordable housing opportunities, public accessibility, neighborhood concerns, integration with existing bicycle and pedestrian plans, design issues, water usage, and any number of other concerns in a contiguous and integrated manner. Carolina North is a huge project - perhaps the biggest impact of a project we've seen in Chapel Hill since the university was first constructed. Should we not treat something that big with an appropriate response?

As far as the Tech Comm. It's had its problems but, without it or some analogue, I'm fairly sure that real technological innovation in our Town's governance will slow to a snails crawl, that the approved enhancements will stall, that all the proposals on the table (for open document standards, usability, F/OSS pilot, etc.) will vaporize.

Marc, the HWCC gathered together a variety of citizen stakeholders with various expertise to help advise the Town on the multitude of issues CN presents. One committee focused on just the specifics of HWA's development while, hopefully, at the same time being agile enough to respond the UNC's new committee in near realtime.

I'm a strong believer in tapping into the citizenry's talent, innovation, imagination and expertise.

I work in a field where we say "the more eyes on the problem, the better".

I'm biased towards a process with the greatest possible citizen participation, the greatest possible transparency - one that leverages the unique composition of citizenry skills - to get the job done.

Maybe that's just the problem with keeping the board. It might generate advice/recommendations at odds with the political agenda of a few of our elected folk. Hey, it'll definitely be easier to ignore advice you never get instead of explaining why you're dismissing the researched findings of a citizen's panel.

Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko's role is primarily public relations, which has little to do with technology strategy or assessment. While one might easily observe that the Town has no strategic technology vision, the solution would likely not come from the office of public relations. The suggestion that a County CIO position might serve some useful purpose for the Town is also unappealing.

However, a combination of UNC technology strategic vision with our Town strategic vision could produce beneficial results for the ENTIRE town, as well as substantial leadership on the Carolina North initiative. The County would certainly benefit from this in numerous ways.

The University has enough world-class resources to help the Town Council craft and execute a strategic vision. I don't believe the Town Council could do the same for the University.

Just making the point about the University's significant pool of resources available to the Town Council (and all other local governments in the State). Our Town Council might call upon those resources to help craft and execute a strategic technology vision. CN will be a part of the Town's future, and deserves to be considered as an element of any strategic technology collaboration.

Council just voted 8-1 to eliminate each of the Boards, Laurin Easthom dissenting.

Will,

There are a few good active environmentalists at UNC so I don't think you should expect to see a complete disregard for the environment in the absence of HWCC. :)

Terri

Terri, one of the great things about UNC's recent rhetoric is how they've move much more towards using the university's own unique talents to design CN. I'm glad they're finally on beam with that idea.

Still, "the more eyes the better". The HWCC represented an organized voice of the citizens.

Now there's a vacuum.

I think you mean an organized voice of SOME citizens.

Are committees, boards and commissions labels that can be used interchangeably?

I don't see the vacuum Will but perhaps that's because from everything I've read and been told about the Ken Broun committee, it's purpose is to set out a list of design requirements for CN. You've worked on enough software design projects to understand the importance of such requirements. And you know that what you start out to accomplish is always mediated by practical reality. Those practical realities are well represented on the Board IMHO. OWASA is there to keep everyone aware of water and sewer capacity. The Chamber is there to keep everyone aware of the business realities. The towns are there to keep everyone aware of fiscal equity. The university's own staff is there, in the form of Doug Crawford Brown and others, to keep everyone aware of the environmental limitations.

So to me, the large size and extensive representation will ensure that the design requirements coming out of the committee are grounded in both ideals and realities. That process is being done in full sunshine so there will be plenty of opportunities for dissenting opinions from within and outside the committee.

Terri

As a member of the former CH Tech Board I am all for the boards retirement. I hope that the town council will be very careful in who it appoints to future boards.

I recommend that the council direct the Town staff to create new citizens board/committee training. This training could be a one day event about how local government works. A copy of Roberts Rules of Order for each new board member would be useful too. This could go a LONG way towards helping new committee members work together effectively.

In my opinion any new CH town board involving technology needs to have a small number of members and be laser focused on specific issues. ex. municipal networking (aka wifi), open electronic democracy, etc.

A requirement of meeting times needs to be made. Meetings for board/committee need to be held more than once a month. Subcommittees should meet more often than regular committees. All of these requirements can be stated and agreed too before board/committee members are appointed.

All Chapel Hill town boards/committees need to have a technology subcommittee. Technology permeates our lives and overlaps many aspects of our Towns life. Ex. Planning board should consider recommending to the Town Council the creating of ordinance that allows for wiring and antenna right-away for the creation of municipal networks.

Terri Buckner has stated there's no reason to be concerned about the lack of a citizen committee to address Carolina North.

Many citizens have noted that UNC is fast becoming more of a mega corporation pursuing “big money” biotech/pharmaceutical interests than an institution of learning. And Carolina North is slated to be a massive biotech research park involved in “government” work.

And not only is UNC now involved in biological warfare defense research but UNC is also one of six universities that will be part of biological warfare research consortium hosted by Duke University—which means an escalation of biological warfare defense research in our area (including courier trucks delivering pathogens).

And across the nation doctors, scientists, citizens and other elected officials (including Hillary Clinton) have protested and signed petitions against this type of research being conducted in populated areas due to the risks of biocontainment leaks from accidents or deliberate release stemming from terrorists or just mentally disturbed individuals.

Increasingly our elected officials and appointed committee members and local board officials are those who cater to the wants and needs of the new biotech/pharmaceutical “corporate” UNC.

UNC needs water supply in order to continue to expand—especially since UNC is focusing on biotech/pharmaceutical research. Biotech/pharmaceutical research involves solvents, chemicals, dangerous pathogens, animal experimentation (and suffering). . .and also uses more water than traditional classroom instruction (wet labs) and entails more water pollution.

Ms. Buckner assures us that “OWASA is there to keep everyone aware of water and sewer capacity.”

At a recent presentation of OWASA before the Chapel Hill Town Council, Mac Clarke, OWASA board member who retired in 1991 from his job as director of business development with Pfizer Pharmaceutical Corporation reassured council that water capacity and future proposed development was no problem based on past use and future projects of use coupled with conservation measures---but even Mayor Foy noted that OWASA could not predict the future extent and severity of droughts.

Terri Buckner assures us that, “The university's own staff is there, in the form of Doug Crawford Brown and others, to keep everyone aware of the environmental limitations.”

Douglas Crawford-Brown pushed the Town to join the CRed program calling for reduced air pollution but specifically said UNC would NOT join the program. Before Council, Mr. Crawford-Brown stated that less focus should be placed on pollution from industry (like coal-burning power plants) and more on pollution from individuals and other sources. And shortly after the Town joined the CRed program and pledged to reduce their air pollution, UNC petitioned to expand the capacity of their coal-burning power plant. In the face of public concern over this move UNC officials said the increased capacity would not involve increased coal use as they would utilize cleaner natural gas—then shortly after this statement they changed position and said they WOULD be burning more coal and also stated they didn't need the Town's permission to do so.

Terri Buckner assures us that “The Chamber is there to keep everyone aware of the business realities.”

During my candidate interview with the Chamber, Aaron Nelson stated that people who were concerned about the health and environmental risks of nuclear power plants and biological warfare defense research were just being NIMBY's.

The Chamber has given Mike Nelson a glowing assessment/endorsement and also posted that:
“Nelson will lead efforts to develop cooperative relationships with UNC and Duke University to attract university spin-off and technology transfer businesses. He stresses this will require working with the private sector to develop adequate wet lab space and other facilities for these businesses.”

Terri Buckner assures us that the newly formed UNC committee will conduct their process “in full sunshine so there will be plenty of opportunities for dissenting opinions from within and outside the committee.”

In full sunshine????? In 2005 the News & Observer reported that UNC was pushing for legislation that would allow the university to sue citizens who requested access to public meetings and public documents under Sunshine Laws.

Biotech/pharmaceutical corporations are wealthy, well-organized and have repeatedly come under fire for price gouging on prescription drugs: for environmental pollution of waterways; and for hiding test results showing the dangers of new drugs and GMO's in the pursuit of profits. And due to the lure of lucrative patents and million dollar research grants our local universities are increasingly wanting to become a part of the biotech/pharmaceutical corporate machine.

Do we need citizen committees to address issues involving Carolina North—absolutely! In fact we need a citizen committee to address the 21rst Century threats to Orange County—nuclear power; biological warfare defense research and GMO's—and UNC is engaged in biological warfare defense research and genetic engineering research.

BTW, I recently spearheaded a resolution addressing the risks of biological warfare defense research in populated areas that was passed at the Orange County Democratic Convention April 8th. I also spoke before the Chapel Hill Town Council advising that the budget needs to include more funding for the specialized equipment and training firefighters and emergency personnel will need to deal with potential biocontamination from dangerous pathogens as biological warfare defense research escalates in our area. I have more on this issue posted on my website www.robincutson.com