May 10th, 2016 CTAB minutes

Topics covered included: WeCount homeless needs & donor app demo by Graham Pruss; Chief Technology Officer Michael Mattmiller on IT procurement, and new Privacy Officer, budget and MetroLab; intro of new SeattleIT Governance Advisor Virginia Gleason; Get Engaged program recruitment; Seattle Schools rep Carmen Rahm moving on; e-gov committee on tech event calendar; Cable and Broadband Committee Update; Cable/Broadband Committee update on WAVE franchise meetings; Digital Inclusion Committee update on Tech Matching Fund review; YMCA & Horn of Africa Services immigrant stories and humans of South Seattle youth media projects.

This meeting was held:  May 10, 2016; 6:00-7:30  p.m., Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2750

Podcasts available at:

Follow or post to @seatechboard / #seatechboard on Twitter.


Board Members:  Amy Hirotaka, Joneil Sampana via phone, Karia Wong, Iga Fikayo Keme, Jose Vasquez, Carmen Rahm, Chris Alejano, Mark DeLoura, Heather Lewis

Public: David Doyle, Dan Moulton, Dan Stiefel, Dorene Cornwell, Lloyd Douglas,  Graham Pruss (WeCount), Christopher Sheats, Sarah Abramowitz (Ross Strategic), Ann Summy, Kate Schneier (YMCA).

Staff:  Michael Mattmiller via Skype, Virginia Gleason, David Keyes, Derrick Hall, Cass Magnuski

24 In Attendance

Meeting was called to order by Amy Hirotaka.


Agenda and Minutes approved for the April minutes.


Michael Mattmiller: Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for letting me join you virtually this month. There are just a few things that I want to update you on. The first, we had a very successful vendor forum today in City Hall. This was the second year we partnered with King County to talk about what our departments are doing. Seattle IT and King County IT. They make sure that the many different vendors, companies and consulting firms that would like to partner and do work for the City understand what we’re thinking and planning to do. In particular, this event is a great way to build relationships and make sure that we are aware of the smaller businesses that may not have the depth of experience in responding to RFPs and other traditional procurement vehicles. Our City procurement rules do give us the flexibility to work with smaller firms. In some cases, there’s even a direct voucher scenario so that we can really make sure that we are advancing smaller firms and not burdening them with the greater complexity that our larger projects have. One of the reasons that I was so excited about today was the opportunity to tell our story about WMBE contracts. That’s Women and Minority Owned Businesses. Within the Seattle IT Department, we have a proven track record of giving a significant portion of our awards to WMBE firms. I don’t have the exact numbers from last year, but it was something like 13 percent of our consulting and 11 percent for our goods. We’re always trying to improve those numbers. That’s why today was an opportunity for us to let folks know how to be more successful, to talk about how we would like to see more WMBE partners, and to also encourage larger firms that perhaps we have done work with in the past or that we might use in the future to form relationships with WMBE firms so they can partner and make sure that the work is being spread around.

The other thing to update you on is that I was thrilled that last week Susan Goodman started as our City’s Chief Privacy Officer. I know that this has been a long process to get this role filled, but we wanted to make sure that we got the right candidate, and I do think that Susan is that person. I hope to have her at a future CTAB meeting, but to tell you a little bit about her background, she started her career in Government Records Management in a county in upstate New York, has a depth of experience around issues related to retention, public disclosure, transparency. She actually then went into the commercial sector in records management and privacy for banks, like Bank of America, and then for Consumer Reports, before going to the City, and now with us here at the City of Seattle. So stay tuned for more information as Susan gets up to speed. As you can imagine, with all of the great work that went on last year related to privacy, including the contributions of CTAB. She’s drinking from the firehose and getting up to speed very quickly.

In other news, I’m very proud that the new Seattle IT recently submitted its first budget to the City Budget Office. If that sounds trivial, just think of what we’ve gone through over the past few months in Seattle IT. We’ve brought together 650 staff in 15 departments. Each of those 15 departments had different ways of accounting for technology. And now we’ve been able to put that all together for one overall picture of IT spending for the City, as well as to shape priorities for the future. We will be going through a process to develop our Seattle IT agenda for the next two years. I’ve been given a very brief heads about for that process. And I see that Virginia Gleason is in the room. Virginia, do you want to wave? Virginia is our new governance adviser and she’s gong to be leading that effort to speak with all of our stakeholders and make sure that we get a variety of views. And then we hope to lock on the high level priorities by this July, so we can begin to move forward with planning.

Those are just a few of the things that are top of mind for me. Last thing I’ll share with you is that I am actually in San Diego right now, where we will be having a meeting with the Metro Lab Network Steering Committee. I know I talked a little bit about Metro Lab in the past. It’s the network of cities and universities who are partnering to deliver Smart Cities solutions. We were thrilled when last week, Governor Martin O’Malley was named as the chair of the Metro Lab Network. We’ll be meeting with him tomorrow to talk about his vision and plans for the organization and make sure that what we’re doing in Seattle not only aligns with those, but is providing real benefits to our community, the City, and university.  I can’t wait to share the update with you next time we chat. And I’d be happy to take any questions.

Christopher Sheats: Was there a press release for Susan?

Michael Mattmiller: There has not been yet. We are working on that and expect to have it out in the next week or so.

Amy Hirotaka: Are there any other questions for Michael? Okay, thank you, Michael. So, Virginia, welcome!


Virginia Gleason: I’ve been at Seattle IT for a month. I came from working for the Mayor, and also at the Police Department, since shortly after the Mayor was elected. Previous to that, I worked for the King County Sheriff’s Office for eight or nine years; before that, the Port of Seattle, and then before that, I was a prosecutor, and also in private practice. The theme that is consistent throughout–the work that I’ve done over the last 20 to 25 years–is that I come into various government organizations and I put structure to processes. And I have to say after a month with Seattle IT, this is so much better than dealing with law enforcement processes. I like it a lot better. I’m finding out that there are some areas where we can start to develop a framework for governance that I think will be very helpful in putting all of these 15 IT departments that we have together and aligning some of their practices and priorities with the City’s strategic goals as well as the Seattle IT strategies.  It’s going to take a while to bring that kind of structure to a number of departments that have all come together. We are going to start slowly and make sure that we’re providing the right balance of structure to be responsible with the IT portfolio, without micro-managing individual departments, and creating processes that are going to be getting projects done more difficult. Part of the idea of having centralized IT was going to be a benefit and we were going to be combining resources from all these different departments and having them centrally. But it will probably take a little while for that to level out so that people feel that their projects are coming into the queue in an appropriate place and being managed along the way. So, I’m helping to put together some of those processes.

The three main governance bodies that we look to in Seattle IT: There is the Mayor’s IT sub-cabinet (MITS), which is ten of the department directors; there is a business steering committee; and then CTAB advises the Mayor and the City Council. So we want to make sure that we’re keeping you advised of what the other governance bodies are doing as well so that you understand how they are putting their strategic priorities together and how we’re going to knit this new IT department together and make it function well. One of the things that we’re doing is that I’m going to be doing a very short summary of your minutes each month and sharing that with the business steering committee just so that there is another avenue for them to get feedback about what you’re doing with this group. I don’t know if they read the long minutes, but I want to make sure that we at least draw their attention to what the activity of this group is.

One of the very key parts of our governance is this business steering committee, which is made up of representatives from 12 different departments throughout the City–the larger departments and the budget office as well. And that group is going to play a really key role in some of the oversight and monitoring the progress of a lot of different projects as they go along. We’re developing exactly how that will work. They will start reviewing projects and taking a more significant role in the governance starting in about September. We’re going to spend the summer getting people familiar with the new consolidated IT group, and also develop our processes. Our goal is to have a really easy to follow, easy to find, understandable playbook for the largest and the smallest projects that will give a clear roadmap of how they need to go through the process and where the various stage gates are where they have to be reviewed and checked for alignment and budget and other technical standards.  As we develop that over the next couple of months, I’ll be bringing it here to share with you and I would certainly appreciate any input that you have in regards to developing this governance process.

Anybody have any questions? I will be here at all of the CTAB meetings.

 David Keyes: One of those goals then, is to think about aligning the timing, so that when there are policy decisions or input so that you guys are  up to date on when that’s happening.

Virginia Gleason: And we’re organizing our policies and realizing that with all of these different departments there are a lot of inconsistent policies. So to figure out which ones need to be retired, and maybe how we can harmonize competing policies, we’ll be sharing some of the larger policies with you, as well. And we would also appreciate comments. One of the most significant policies that’s going to get an overhaul this summer and into the fall is going to be the social media policy. It’s a little bit in need of an update. And then we figure out how to have that balance of centralized IT of offering helpful guidance without micro-managing department activities, especially how it relates to how they interact with the community. Because each department has some of its own culture that they have in communicating with whomever their stakeholders are. So we’re going to be working closely with the Department of Neighborhoods. They’re going to be very involved in how that social media policy is developed, so that we’re making sure that we’re not putting any policies in the way of meaningful communication between the departments and the public.

Amy Hirotaka: And will you be soliciting feedback from CTAB at all of these junctures?

Virginia Gleason: Yes. I’m keeping the catalog of where we are going on the policies. I’m going to be putting together a year-long calendar of when we’re going to be submitting those–which ones will be going to MITS for approval and which ones don’t [need to go there].  And then figuring out the appropriate time to get feedback, and then how we want to package that to send the feedback on.

Christopher Sheats: A specific question: I was wondering if you had any input about the existing and/or future protections for internal/external processes.

Virginia Gleason: I don’t, specifically. We have a couple of different groups within the City that can respond to that better. The Ethics Office deals with whistle blower issues, and Civil Rights would be another. I can talk to you a little about that afterwards, but I know it’s a pretty well-developed process. Do you mean as it relates to IT or just in general?

Christopher Sheats: Well, I presume there is an IT component to any process, unless of course, it’s a verbal communication. My specific interest is in how someone can safely blow the whistle without internal retaliation, and providing structures internally.

Virginia Gleason: Yes. I can talk to you about that because that is a fairly well-developed process. I think I actually have some material that I can give you.

Christopher Sheats: And would this extend to contract workers as well?

Virginia Gleason: I assume so. It might depend upon what kind of contract. I’ll have to see.

Lloyd Douglas: What is the difference between the Mayor’s sub-cabinet and the business steering committee? Is the sub-cabinet just the department heads and the other one is business people?

Virginia Gleason: That’s a pretty good description. The Mayor’s IT sub-cabinet is kind of like a board of directors. They meet quarterly. I’ve been to one of their meetings so far. They were extremely well-prepared and had read all of the materials, which surprised me a little bit because I know that a lot of these folks have a lot going on. But we try to bring to them higher level policies and issues. Our goal is if at the business steering committee level there is not consensus about either approval of a policy or approval of a project, that that in limited instances they could almost be like a field board for that. But they only meet quarterly. So we don’t want to give them a large amount of work to do because it would slow our process down. For example, talking about what we would want to do with the strategic agenda, we’ll definitely bring it to them. And then, over the course of a year, policies that need their approval–maybe it’s about 10 that we would bring them. But the business steering committee would look at a lot more and have a lot more hands on portfolio review. The IT sub-cabinet wants to know the ones that are in trouble, with thresholds of dollar amount complexities as well as some of the security and privacy issues.

Chris Alejano: I’m new to CTAB. I’m just curious. You talked about communication from the minutes to MITS. What is the mechanism the other way from the business steering committee? Or is it even necessary? I don’t know how that interplays.

Virginia Gleason: They don’t have MITS so much as we have something that we prepare for them, which is all public information. We would be more than happy to share it with you so that you know what they’re looking at.

Chris Alejano: I just don’t know the history of how that interfaces with our work here.

Virginia Gleason: We do document. If there is something where they actually have to make a decision, such as approving a policy, that would be documented. So, one of the policies that we gave them last time was the policy on policies, because that was a good place to start. Here is how which policies need approval, where and how they’re going to be managed. And they made a couple of changes to it. But I think that’s a good idea, to keep that communication going both ways.

David Keyes: There have been a couple of iterations of sub-cabinets in different forms, so this is pretty new under this administration, the IT sub-cabinet. I think this will really help, having Virginia be our linkage between them. Typically, in the past, where CTAB has come up with a position around something, depending on who was along on the decision making, that may go to Council or may get fed to Mayor’s office. Sometimes it has been CTAB meeting directly with staff from Mayor’s office or Council members in the past. Typically, we would take that and share it with CTAB, fold it into a memo package or something like that. I think I would take this as a good opportunity to stay better aligned.

Virginia Gleason: We’re trying to work the three groups so that we share information on what we’re doing, and then also scheduling out quite a ways for that business steering committee as well as MITS, so Michael Mattmiller does most of the direct communication with MITS, but I put together the package of information, so I’m already working on the July meeting. We get them for 90 minutes, and try to make really good use of the time, but I know that they’re really interested in what advisory groups have to say and any input they have.

Joneil Sampana via phone: You mentioned the policy on policies. Is there a way for CTAB members to review that policy on policies and the other policies that you’ll be overseeing?

Virginia Gleason: Absolutely. I will work with Amy Hirotaka or whoever the appropriate person is to let you know the policy schedule that we have that goes to the more formal and share them with you. My goal is to share those with you before they’re adopted, so that you can give us any feedback that you think would be helpful before we present it up the chain for final approval.

Karia Wong: I’m just wondering what is the timeline for this strategic planning?

Virginia Gleason:  We’re going to be talking about it with MITS in July, and so we would have an opportunity with this group in June. We’re having individual meetings with some of the department directors, and so far, they seem very pleased. Some of them have some questions about how things are categorized, so I think we’re trying to be a little artful in the way we describe some things. The single biggest question that has come up so far is how do we capture what our goals are related to mobility. And whether that sub-sets of other things, like public engagement, or should it be its own stand-alone item. I think that’s the single biggest group of comments we’ve gotten. But we will be bringing that here also for your comments.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you. We will move on to WeCount and Graham Pruss.

(See for more info and for the application).

Graham Pruss: Thank you, everybody, for having us. I want to introduce myself briefly. I am the director of WeCount. I was the outreach specialist for the City of Seattle and for the Housing Alliance, people living in vehicles for several years. Over the past couple of years we have been thinking about these programs where they offer off-street parking for people in vehicles. I was one of the people who has helped move those things along. About a year ago, I started this company called WeCount with Jonathan Sposato, who is the founder of Geekwire Magazine, and a successful entrepreneur here in Seattle. I experienced homelessness as a teenager, as well as a social services dependent in my early to late teens and 20s. A lot of this comes out of that experience, as well as IT hardware and software development.

As we know, Seattle has a state of emergency regarding homelessness. The Mayor declared this back in December. This is to show the numbers that we are talking about. If you are not familiar with the numbers, the amount of people experiencing homelessness in Seattle, the number is 10,047 people documented. Actually, this is last year’s number, 2015. Since 1999, that is a 102 percent increase. This is one of the reasons why the Mayor has declared a state of emergency. That has helped to free up a lot of resources, and it allows for a lot more flexible spending within our City. Around these services as well as helps to align us with the West Coast organization of mayors who have to redirect the funding for these services back to the federal level, as our municipalities cannot handle this problem alone and we really need help from the federal government.

So what is WeCount? We are a nonprofit. We exist to strengthen the social safety net. We enable and empower people to make a difference in their communities, one on one. To help people donate directly to people in need and for people who are in need to express that need — physical, real needs–through a safe, confidential, secure way, and for people to do that exchange, that transaction, to be able to give, to donate directly to a person items in this safe way. We built upon our years of social service experience as well as about a full year of doing surveys with people who are experiencing homelessness as well as case managers executive directors, all the way down through social services agencies to really integrate what  we are building in with current programs. So, we aren’t trying to reinvent the wheel. We’re trying to make this as unobtrusive as possible to really fit in with agencies that are doing the work on the ground and help augment their services. We built this through a data driven design process, which I think you might appreciate at this table. We try to do this work smart, not hard.

We are seeing our first big release this spring at the end of this month.

We have a short video that I’ll show you. It was made by a company called Killer Infographics. If you’re familiar with Killer Infographics, they do a lot of work with Buzzfeed infographics videos. We were lucky to be chosen as their nonprofit pro bono partner for 2016. This video shows a little bit of what we’re doing.

[Plays video]

This gets to what our core message is. It’s really about trying to change the conversation around public poverty and around getting people to reach out to other people in the community to increase the safety net on an individual, personal level. This is going to be spread to the internet soon, so hopefully you will see these up there. We’re also doing a big bus advertising campaign at the end of the month. Beginning next month, you’ll be seeing ads around this app. So let me show you a little bit about what WeCount is.

You heard that quote about how many people experiencing homelessness use the internet, or use smart phones. Some people are dubious of that, but some cities show that up to 90 percent of the people who are experiencing homelessness have access to the internet through a smart phone or the library. Libraries are a major touchpoint for people who are living on the streets. So we actually built WeCount to be a web app. It is a web site that is phone responsive. It looks great on your phone. It looks like a phone app, but it is made to be used on the web via the libraries. All that is required to use it is an email address and a confirmed phone number that we can send a text message to. We use that just to contact the individual. When a person uses it, they only have to enter their first name, their last initial, and their month and date of birth. And that’s to identify to an item. Other than that, we don’t ask for any kind of legally identifying information. We dobn’t ask for someone to show an ID. We don’t ask for somebody to prove that they are homeless. One of the big parts of using this app is that we want this to be egalitarian. When someone uses the system, you don’t log in as a donor or a seeker. You log in as a user. So one is encouraged to both offer items and to request items, and you can do both at the same time. You can request up to five items at any given time. You can offer as many items as you want. And then, it is confidential, secure, safe. We developed this with our social services providers and case managers as well as people experiencing homelessness. After many interviews about what sorts of needs people have. The actual list of items, about 200 items, that was developed by groups like Facing Homelessness in Seattle and formerly homeless in Seattle: Public Housing Alliance, Union Gospel Mission, and dozens of people who are experts.

So this is actually what it looks like. I could open it, but I don’t know how much time I have. Fifteen minutes? Oh, that’s great. So why don’t we open it?

We have entered a live beta test on this system. Since this last Monday, the system is up and running. Everyone who is in the system right now is actually a real person. These requests that you are going to see are live requests. I’m not actually going to make a request in the system because that would mean that I’m going to give items to someone. I have items I already have given. Click on ‘Give Something.’ Let’s say that someone wants to offer an item to someone in their community. Right when you go in, you can see some of the requests that have been made within the community already.

I should make this clear. We’re looking for people to donate new or gently used items. The idea is that instead of these things going to Goodwill, instead of them being thrown away or sold at a garage sale, we want to redirect some of those items in our own closets to help some people in our own community. And this goes to somebody who is maybe living on the street, or maybe they got off the street and now are living in the Frye Apartments or somewhere else.

So you can see that four people have asked for tents, four people have asked for laptops, three people have asked for cell phones, you got bed pillows, and sleeping bags. This is actually what the system looks like. You can go in, you can see. We asked people to only give things that are in good condition. First off, there are multiple categories of items, from your outdoor gear, to electronics, to home goods. Within each one, we show how many requests have been received. There are 13 in the outdoor gear.

Let’s say you want to give someone a tent. That would be under Shelter and Warmth. Right now we can see that there are four requests for tents, so that shows us that there is actually a need for that within our communities. So we can hit Yes. I can give a tent. And if we go back to View More Items, let’s say we want to give a backpack and bag. Let’s go down to Choose Our Options. If there are options that may be available, you can determine those. So, with a tent, the capacity is important, the size. You can set if you want to be offering a five-person tent. I can say my color is red, black, camouflage, a whole list. Same goes for the person who is requesting. It’s the identical process on both sides of offering and requesting. Select Locations, and these locations are set up all over the communities. For downtown, we have 14 sites that are set up for Seattle right now. We’ll have 28 by the end of the month. They are already partnered, but we haven’t yet installed at those sites, partially because we began our beta test this last week, so we started to slow and began our soft launch. But if you were to go through and select something, you can also select where to pick it up. Rainier Valley, for example.

This shows how it works. We built it to be really simple, very user-intuitive. And again to enable people to give within their communities.

One this about this that’s really neat is that after this connection is made, and the offer is in the system, we match the offer. It asks the person who wants to donate item, do you still want to give the item. They might have given it to someone else at this point, so you hit, Yes, you still want to give the item. We then say to the person who wants to get the item, do you still want to get this item. Once, that’s confirmed, and we know that there is interest in this item, we tell the person who is willing to donate it when and where they can drop it off. The item isn’t actually onsite until that person drops it off and it’s confirmed to the person who will pick it up. They’re  told to drop it off at the Frye Apartments down on 2nd and Yesler, for example. When they get there, there is a bin very similar to this one right here, a 40 gallon recycling bin covered in WeCount stickers and instructions. When they get there, they have the person’s first name, their last initial, and the day and month of birth of the person they’re giving it to. They get that information to the person there. The person writes it on the sticker that we have provided, puts the item into the box. Then we remind them every three days to let us know if they’ve dropped off the item. Once they have, we then inform the person who requested the item that you’re item is now available. Here is where you can pick it up and the times you can do so. They then go in, and give their information, and they’re given the item. Once the person says they dropped off the item, we send them a message that says, ‘Thank you so much for giving your tent. When you did so, you dropped it off at the Frye Apartments.  The Frye Apartments provides permanent, supportive housing for men and women in our communities. If you would like to volunteer or donate, here is how you do that, and here is how you can join their mailing list.’ It’s a set of information that that agency provides. Then, when the person confirms that they picked up the item, we send them a message that says, “We hope you enjoy your tent. If you’d like to send a message of thanks, here are four pre-written thank you notes. Just click one and say, ‘OK,’ and we’ll send it off.’ And then I get a message that says, “Graham says thank you so much for giving me that tent. It made a big difference in my life.” And so it brings it full circle.

The final little piece of this is that both parties are prompted to share their stories on social media. They actually can then say through Facebook or Twitter, “I just gave someone a tent in my community through Frye Apartments, and you can, too.” The reason for that is to surface the connections between people, to surface the social services they’re active in our communities, and also to connect people with those. So that, as we are bringing people to these locations–I should say that the sites are matched based on not just the location, but on the one that has the least amount of items. So, we’re trying to divvy people up between the system. So one part of that is also helping to de-silo people from within their local social services agencies, so that they are actually encouraged to go to a different social service agency to pick up an item, learn about other services that are there, as well as the individual who gives the item actually enters into a social service agency, learns about those services that are active in our community and how they can be part of it.

These are some of the partners that have already signed up.  Public Housing Alliance, Low Income Housing Institute, DESC, UGM, and basically, what we want is we are looking for locations to expand this network. Like I said, we’re at about 30 locations right now in Seattle. We’re looking to grow that. We have locations in every neighborhood, except for SoDo and Georgetown. We’ve had a little bit of difficulty getting in there. So anybody who has any possible connections, we welcome them. We work with churches and congregations in general, of any religion. We also work with many different social service agencies and emergency shelters. We would also like to meet introductions that might be a good fit with that network for those locations, but also people who make connections to clients, such as the Union Gospel Mission, or community psychiatric clinics. These places would be good to use for a touchpoint. It’s mainly just getting the message out to people in need and those who want to help.

There is a huge amount of need in our community, as we know. But there is actually a huge amount of people who actually want to help. And that’s really what we built this for. We built this to help people who want to help others, to help our social services to do their jobs even better.

I think that’s it. Are there any questions?

Jose Vasquez: Do you have any locations in South Park?

Graham Pruss: We have one in White Center, but not in South Park. But we would like to have one in South Park. I have business cards that I’d love to hand out.

Amy Hirotaka: Are there any other questions for Graham?

Graham Pruss: Because the app is in beta test, the app is at If you go to, that’s a marketing web site, so you won’t see the app.

Christopher Sheats: Your presentation talked about confidentiality and security. One property of privacy is security, and you didn’t talk about privacy. One issue that I saw is that you put something into your account via ACTV. You didn’t use https.

Graham Pruss: Actually, it is https.

Christopher Sheats: Actually, it doesn’t upgrade to https. With my phone, I could have snagged your [unintelligible].

Mark DeLoura: How do you plan to surface the needs of the community, for people who maybe don’t have a [unintelligible].

Graham Pruss: Well, we’d love to have screens in, say, City Hall.  What we’re going to be doing is a strong social media campaign. We’re also working with PR firms to do a national campaign around this and spread the word around. One of the things that Killer Infographics is creating for us is an analytics tool that will be embedded into the site. So, at some point down the line, you’ll be able to go in there and see not just what people have needs for, like you can now, but how those needs are being met. So you can see how they’re working within our community.

Amy Hirotaka: I think we have time for one more question and then we’ll move on.

David Keyes: Are you building in any other language interface?

Graham Pruss: We will be. We’re struggling to get this out the door right now. Our first plan is one in Spanish, we also want to include Arabic, as well as Cambodian and Russian. Because we are focused on Seattle and we’re trying to get to the primary languages that are spoken here. But that takes work. Once the English version is done, we’re planning on expanding.

Question: Are these donations tax deductible?

Graham Pruss: No. They are not. Because these are peer to peer donations. Generally if I give you something, I can’t collect a tax donation on it. It’s a little bit different than if you were to give it to Goodwill, because Goodwill takes that donation and sells it, and then uses the money to fund their stores. We actually give the items directly to the individual. Actually, we don’t even give it. You give it. We provide a space for you to give it.


Amy Hirotaka: Thank you very much, Graham. We really appreciate your taking the time to present this. We’ll also write your email address up there on the white board before the meeting ends. Now we’ll move on to Public Comments and Announcements. There is one thing that I wanted to share, which was the email that Sabrina sent David Keyes about the date change for this Digital Equity Committee meeting.

David Keyes: Kate Schneier is here, so she can talk about it, and also Get Engaged.

Kate Schneier: I came in a little late. I’m Kate Schneier and I work at the YMCA and I run the Get Engaged program. Get Engaged places young adults, ages 18-29, on boards and commissions each fall. It is an innovative program from the City of Seattle and the Metrocenter YMCA. Commissioners help shape policy decisions, make recommendations, and provide citizen participation in city government. If you know of anybody who is interested in applying for a program, they can go to . The application is up there and contact information. I know that Sabrina Roach was here last month and told you about the Digital Equity meeting. We meeting tomorrow evening and we actually changed the [unintelligible]…. We rescheduled for September 21 at 6:30 p.m. The location right now is TBD.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you. Any other public comments or announcements?

Christopher Sheats: You and I had a brief email conversation about the Privacy Committee and I just wanted to ask if there are any updates.

Amy Hirotaka: Yes. If you could stick around afterwards, we can talk about how to reinvigorate that committee. Iga had expressed an interest in privacy. I know that Christopher Sheats was also interested in the Privacy Committee. And with Beryl Fernandes’ term coming to an end, there haven’t been any meetings. So, we are potetntially re-starting the Privacy Committee. We’ll be talking more about it and will email everybody as soon as there is more information.

David Keyes: Just a couple of other quick notes. For Open Seattle tomorrow, there is a meet up there on research and data for the City here. Candace Faber will be there and I think they’re having somebody from the Department of Planning and Community Development. That’s at Socrata, and it’s by Open Seattle.

Carmen Rahm: I’ve got one quick announcement. I have to leave early tonight. Not only will I be leaving, but I won’t be returning ever. The reason for that is, unless something really weird happens over the next 24 hours, I’m going to be resigning from Seattle Public Schools on Thursday. I’ll be moving to a great, exciting, new position as CIO and Chief Digital Strategy Officer at Kent Public Schools, which is right in line with what I want to do. And it takes my 45 to 50 minute each direction commute every day down to 10 minutes, and that’s by bicycle. Four minutes if I go by car. So that’s what’s happening there, and I’m excited about that. Obviously, I won’t be here. I’m on this committee because of my role and my involvement with the schools. It’s been a good partnership. I know that I’ve taken a lot out of here that I could apply to the schools. We’ve been able to do a lot of good things. For those who don’t know, when this committee released the state of community technology with regards to Digital Equity, and information on broadband, that became my Bible. I carried it around with me. I gave our leadership copies of it. It really mirrored what I was hearing in the schools when I went out and visited with them. It really became that piece of paper that said what we’re hearing is true. What we need to do is real. Let’s partner with the City and move forward. With that, I guess I bid adieu. And if I show up next month, you’ll know that the school board didn’t approve me. I’m assuming that they’ll look at my paperwork and say, ‘Oh, Carmen Rahm. When is ‘she’ going to show up for work?’

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, Carmen. I know everyone will join me in thanking Carmen.

Carmen Rahm: I did tell David Keyes that if the City allows this, because I know in my position you have to have the secret handshake and you have to be approved by City Council, just let me know. I think I’ve got some people on my leadership team at the district that would be happy to fill in and continue to support the committee, but also take the benefit back to the school district.

Amy Hirotaka: All right. Break time.


Amy Hirotaka:  Welcome back. First up after the break is the E-Gov update from Heather Lewis and Joneil Sampana.


Heather Lewis: I have two updates. The first is that the members of the E-Gov Committee have been working on the social engagement strategy. We have created an editorial calendar and we are posting within the CTAB Twitter account. We have 300 followers. So far, we’re getting some traction. We would love to hear from you. Right now, we’re copywriting the editorial calendar based on community calendars. But in this room I am certain that there are many more events that we’re unaware of, and stories we’re unaware of. We really would love to have content from this group. I’m going to put my email on the white board and if you could send any stories that occur between now and December 26. That’s our timeframe for the calendar at this point.

David Keyes: Is the calendar something that we should pull into the CTAB web site?

Heather Lewis: Yes. That’s a good idea.

Joneil Sampana via phone: You know, along those lines, you will notice on our CTAB web site, there is a calendar with one or two events. Is that the calendar that you’re talking about?

David Keyes: Yes. The City uses Trumba as its calendar application. So we automatically pull stuff in that’s categorized as tech from the City and from the library. So maybe we could figure out something different or integrate.

Heather Lewis: A lot of the events on the editorial calendar would probably function much better on a visual calendar. So if there was a way to tie our editorial calendar to your calendar, that would be good.

David Keyes:  I can connect you with the web staff that knows the details of that application so they can figure out the best mechanism. The Trumba calendar, in general for the City, is open. Anybody can create an account and post on the City’s calendar. It’s just a question of how we aggregate that to a specific calendar.

Heather Lewis: Also, for all of you who have Twitter accounts, please follow us @seatechboard. Our other item on the E-Gov agenda is a position statement that we’ve been working on. It’s gone through five members of the UW committee at this point, and will be fact checked. I’ll send it over to Bruce Blood, Michael Mattmiller, and [unintelligible] for fact checking and then we will submit it to the board.

Amy Hirotaka: And is this something that you’re hoping that CTAB will formally propose as a body? Or is it just an FYI?

Heather Lewis: I think it’s more on an FYI side of things.

Amy Hirotaka: Great. Karia Wong will now update you on the Broadband Committee.


Karia Wong: I have just two items. Last month, we had a brief overview on the Wave cable franchise from Tony Perez. He gave the timeline and asked how we can share our comments. While we were discussing our work, we were told that there were actually public hearing sections in June and July. We are proposing to have a public hearing combined with a CTAB meeting, somewhere in the Central District. We are looking for suggestions for a location. The reason is that we really want to hear from the current Wave customers on the service that they are receiving. During the meeting, we had a guest who shared her experience in senior housing in the ID area. How the service was priced and also other things. We believe that it’s important for us to get that information from other customers as well. That’s why we’re planning to have the July meeting somewhere in the Central District, where the Wave territory is.

The other thing is we have discussed how we can move forward to continue our plan in trying to get a better idea of how many people will actually benefit from the cable programs from Comcast and Century Link. So, we’re still discussing all the possibilities. One thing we were thinking about was to get an idea of what is the penetration rate for internet. We are also trying to figure out another way to get the real number of how many people are actually signing up for the internet access program. We are trying to put that information together to get a better picture of much access people are getting.

Amy Hirotaka: This reminds me that we wanted to announce the dates and times of meetings. So, Heather, could you give the dates and times when the E-Gov Committee meets.

Heather Lewis: Yes, we meet on the fourth Tuesday of the month. And the next meeting will be at the Westlake location of Microsoft, 320 Westlake Avenue. 7:00 p.m.

Amy Hirotaka: And Karia?

Karia Wong: The Broadband Committee usually meets on the last Monday of each month, but for this month, it’s May 30, which is also Memorial Day. So we are moving this one up a week to May 23, on the sixth floor of the Municipal Tower, which is this building, at 6:30 p.m.

David Keyes: So, just to clarify, the July CTAB meeting will actually be a combination of a meeting and a Wave community meeting here.

Karia Wong: We discussed the possibility of inviting the Councilmember to attend the meeting as well.


Jose Vasquez: The Digital Inclusion Committee Technology Matching Fund review committee is officially starting tomorrow. Some of you know we’re having the meeting here tomorrow at 6:00 p.m. We will do an overview on what is TMF, what are the criteria, scoring considerations, conflict of interest, the application process, and the timeline. We had a quick sneak peek at the application pool for this year. We have a total of 21 applicants for requested funds of $1,340,152.02. The total match that is being included by our community  service organizations are $1,514,077.50. The average request was for $25,397.17. And the median request was $25,404. There were 22 past grantees, which were 54 percent of the applicants. And 19 new applicants to the matching fund. That’s pretty cool. Once we get through the first round of the review, we’ll come back at the June meeting–next meeting we’ll come back with a set of recommendations on which proposals we’ll be funding. So stay tuned.

David Keyes: So that will be a vote.

Dan Moulton: Do you have enough people for your review?

Jose Vasquez: Looks like we do, but we might be seeking more community participants. So, if anybody from the community at-large is interested, let me know.

Dan Moulton: I am. Except tomorrow night is also the same night as Open Seattle.

Jose Vasquez: All right. I’m meeting with Delia Burke on Thursday, so if you can email me the contact information, we can figure out how to maybe do a one on one orientation. If there is a need for any additional committee members, I think that’s doable.

Amy Hirotaka: Great! Thank you. The meeting tomorrow night is actually on the 24th floor. In Room 2474. We were going to talk about communication and social media strategy, but I think Heather Lewis covered it. I assume, since there has been a lot of tweets, that Joneil unearthed the Twitter password. I’m really excited to hear about that. I also would like, Heather, if you want us to share the burden of tweeting, if you want multiple people to have access to the account?

Heather Lewis: One thing that would be beneficial to know any sort of policy around retweets. Right now, we’ve been operating under the assumption that it would probably make sense to retweet City officials. We need a retweet list. Obviously, it needs to be nonpartisan. An approved list would probably be valuable.

David Keyes: Or some guidelines.

Amy Hirotaka: And somebody probably should get the password, to David Keyes or somebody.

David Keyes: Yes. We’re required, because at some level, it is an official City Twitter account–it’s yours to tweet on–but as a board and commission we have some responsibility to archive it. So if you can get the password from Joneil then we can set up an archive for that.

Christopher Sheats: Being in community technology, I advocate community members tweeting about CTAB work.

Amy Hirotaka: Yes, I agree. I think that we’re advising the City, are we technically beholding to the City’s social media policy? Are retweets considered endorsements? That’s what we have to figure out.

David Keyes: What our requirements are legally, in terms of our public disclosure and things like that, I think there’s a difference between that and what’s the content policy. It’s the board’s Twitter account, so we obviously want to work with you, but to Christopher’s point, it’s an opportunity to share a broader set of information that’s of interest to people. So, I don’t see it from wearing my City employee bureaucrat hat. I think we want to encourage information dissemination and dialogue. We certainly know from other social media use that you want to stay true to what you’re intending to reach in terms of followers and content and dialogue to keep people engaged and not overwhelmed by stuff. So that’s a fine balance, of course.

Christopher Sheats: Ultimately, is it worth retweeting, or not. Personally, from managing Twitter accounts for organizations similar to this, in my opinion, it is an inclusionary action and somewhat empowering, as well.

David Keyes: In terms of follow-up, I know that Mark DeLoura expressed some interest at the last meeting. Maybe Heather, Amy, and I could figure out a time to connect at a meeting. I think that you’re starting to head down that path. The other question we have is should we and how should we do a refresh on the web site and connect those things as well.

Amy Hirotaka:  Any additional announcements or updates?

David Keyes: If people didn’t grab the flyer there. Beryl Fernandes, a former CTAB member, is working on a Privacy Forum. That’s set for June 8 at Town Hall. I’ll email that out to folks. There’s a flyer over here. Looks like an interesting program and I want to encourage folks to go and to share that around.

Another thing is about a week ago, we had a gathering for the HUD Connect Home project. That’s the project that is increasing access and adoption for public housing families. we had about 30 people or so, including some folks from GITHUB. They’re going to be doing a day or two of coding training and giving participants tablets at the end of that. We had Best Buy as a partner, so they’re also out at their Dev Shop here in Seattle and their stores are going to have volunteers come out to help. A number of community organizations are also involved. So, we’re going to be working with some of them on distribution of about 100 laptops that we have this year to go to public housing residents with this project. The three internet providers were there: Century Link, Comcast, and Interconnection, who is reselling the Mobile Citizen service. Just a great chance to get the community providers connected with some of that information. I think we’ll see more of those events coming up, potentially doing some outreach events in the five public housing districts, which are Rainier Vista, High Point, New Holly, Lake City Court, and Yesler Terrace, so southwest/southeast, and one in North Seattle. Those will be happening over the summer. Might be a chance to staff a table, share some information about opportunities. Kate, do you have anything to add to that?

Kate Schneier: It’s a good opportunity to connect.

David Keyes: Since we have the time, Kate just had this great event with Horn of Africa Services on Thursday. Do you want to say something about that?

Kate Schneier: The YMCA coordinates with Horn of Africa Services, through a program with the City Human Services office as a youth job readiness training consortium. Horn of Africa is one of five social services agencies that serve specific language areas. They contract out to us because they’re a smaller nonprofit. Usually it’s the other way around. We run an after school youth program for different east African countries: Somalia, Eritrea, and others. The youth we’re working with do a 12-hour job readiness training program, and a 60-hour internship. They’re wrapping up their current program, which was a photo project called Youth in South Seattle. They went out to interview and video and photograph people and did a presentation at the Columbia City Library. They also did white board animations that told the story of their lives, some challenge that they’ve overcome. They learned how to do all of this stuff. It was really a great event. It was good collaboration with the Seattle Public Library system. We had a great experience with Interconnection. I have a video that I can share with you. Five of them, through their internship, earned points that they can trade in for refurbished laptops. They picked those out at Interconnection.

[See examples of the immigrant whiteboard animations at]

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, everyone. We will adjourn early and enjoy the sunshine.

May 10, 2016 Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board Agenda

Draft Meeting Agenda

May 10th, 2016, 6-8 pm
Location: Room 2750 (27th floor), Seattle Municipal Tower: 700 – Fifth Avenue

Introductions 5
Approval of agenda and April minutes 2
Chief Technology Officer Report: Michael Mattmiller (via skype) 10
Introduction of Virginia Gleason, new Seattle IT Governance Advisor 10
WeCount homeless needs & donor app demo: Graham Pruss & WeCount team 20
Public comment & announcements 10
Break 10
E-gov update: Joneil Sampana and Heather Lewis 10
Cable & Broadband committee update 10
Digital Inclusion (incl. Tech Matching Fund): Jose Vasquez & Nourisha Wells 10
CTAB communications/social media strategy: Amy 10
Any additional updates or announcements 10
Wrap up and next meeting 5


April 12th, 2016 CTAB minutes

Topics covered included: Update by Chief Technology Officer Michael Mattmiller; Candace Faber spoke about Seattle civic technology advocate work; Hans Hechtman and Terry Davis outlined the Comcast Internet Essentials low income program; Carmen Rahm addressed Seattle Public Schools’ tech vision and update; Joneil Sampana and Heather Lewis gave an update on the E-Gov Committee; Cable and Broadband Committee Update; Jose Vasquez gave the Digital Inclusion Committee update.

This meeting was held:  April 12, 2016; 6:00-8:00 p.m., Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2750

Podcasts available at:


Board Members:  Amy Hirotaka, Joneil Sampana, Karia Wong, Iga Fikayo Keme, Jose Vasquez, Carmen Rahm, Chris Alejano, Mark DeLoura, Heather Lewis, Nourisha Wells

Public: Brian Hsi, David Doyle, Maureen Jones (Solid Ground), Dan Moulton, Kevin O’Boyle, Dan Stiefel, Dorene Cornwell, Hans Hechtman, Terry Davis, Sabrina Roach, Lloyd Douglas, Heather Griswold,

Staff:  Michael Mattmiller, Jim Loter, David Keyes, Derrick Hall, Cass Magnuski, Candace Faber

27 In Attendance

Meeting was called to order by Amy Hirotaka.


Agenda and Minutes approved with one name addition for the March minutes.


Michael Mattmiller: Good evening. It’s great to see you all. It’s a very exciting week here in the City. This is the week when we are transitioning from the Department of Technology IT to the Seattle Information Technology Department. If that sounds like a word change, it’s so much more. This is actually the change that was approved by City Council last fall to consolidate the City’s 650 IT professionals into one new consolidated IT department. The change legally took effect last Wednesday, and over the past week, we’ve had a series of events and changes to help make this transition real for our staff and for our City. These changes culminate tomorrow with a celebration of the new department, that will be led by Mayor Murray. I’m very excited to work with all of our staff as we move together as one department.

Just to go back, it was 11 months ago that Mayor Murray announced that we would be consolidating our IT staff. And when we think about why, it really relates to the vision of a safe, portable, vibrant, and interconnected Seattle, where technology enables everything we do here in the City. It’s how we communicate with the public; it’s how we ensure that we have efficient City departments; and of course, as this group knows very well, it’s how we ensure that everyone who lives in the City of Seattle has an opportunity to advance themselves to get the educational and economic outcomes that they want through Digital Equity.

With all of that need, we realized that within the City, we did not organize ourselves to be successful. We had 15 different department IT teams that we all doing different projects that they had prioritized. They would go to their department directors and say, “We need a server with eight cores. The directors would say, “I don’t know what that means, but sure, I’ll pay for it.”  We had teams arguing about who could administer an System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM) server the best. And if the department head didn’t know what an SCCM server is, that was their problem.

So, we’re really in this new space, a consolidated department where we can really focus on creating the capacity to take on innovative new projects, like the new fire electronic medical record system that’s going to roll soon, thanks in part to a grant from Microsoft, for surface tablets for the field that we’re very excited about. We have a number of projects that have been envisioned. We’re able to work with organizations like Code for America to come help build out new solutions that will help police better interact with community members who are in need. A huge thanks to Seattle IT staff, and all of the City staff that helped make this possible, and to CTAB for your support.

It’s also been an exciting months since I last saw you. We launched the Digital Equity Initiative. Thank you to Amy Hirotaka and Jose Vasquez, and everyone, for your leadership in helping us get to this point; to Century Link and Comcast and the many providers in the room that were part of the Digital Equity Committee, and helped offer guidance and solutions to make that launch successful.

We also have Candace Faber with us today for the first time. I’m so glad to have Candace here with you to talk about how, as we come together as one IT department, and as we become a City that is data-driven, the role of this group, and of community partners and others, in helping to envision how we leverage our community’s collective brilliance to come up with ideas and solutions that we in government just never will have time to do on our own.

And I’m very happy to welcome our new members. I’ve had an opportunity to sit at the table with you just last week, and you are now official.

So, that’s my update for this month. Lots of exciting changes, lots of great projects. Any questions that I can answer, I’m happy to do so.

Carmen Rahm: I wonder whether Council has rejected any potential members.

David Keyes: Not that I’m aware of. I should also mention that we presented the Digital Equity plan to Council last week also, and there was a really good, hearty endorsement from the Education, Equity, Governance Committee. The two new members, Deborah Juarez and Lorena Gonzalez were part of that committee.

Carmen Rahm: Does the consolidation change the role of CTAB at all? Because, if CTAB was looking at advising you and your group, and now your group is this instead of this–I’m assuming that’s what happened–all of this new consolidated group reports to you. So, does it expand the expectations you have of CTAB on areas of advice, and do you see any restructuring or expansion of this group as you go forward?

Michael Mattmiller: That’s a great question. Amy and I have talked a little bit about this. First, the mechanics. When we talk about creating a new department, you may know that both my job description and the structure of the department are codified in Seattle Municipal Code. It’s not quite online yet. I’ve already reached out to the Clerk’s Office, but if you really want to go read it, it’s Seattle Municipal Code 3.23 is the chapter on the role of the CTO in the department. Until that’s live, it’s 3.22, its predecessor. There are a few minor changes. Interestingly, when we passed the legislation for a new department, we moved CTAB from being created as a part of the Cable Code in SMC 2160 to the part of the code that is Seattle IT. And that was intentional. The history of this group, as I understand it, is that this group was originally created in the 1980s to advise the City on our cable franchise. And over the years, based on the interest of this group, the Mayor and the Council, it has broadened, first, to be about community technology, and now covers how technology is used much more broadly. I really look forward to having guidance and thought from this group about the new department as a whole, and how technology enables out City. And if that means that this group is interested in SCCM, I’m happy to bring in Bill Norris and his team to talk about how we package into full application. The first opportunity we’ll have to look at that more broad application is our upcoming strategic agenda. The way that we govern IT in this City is through the Mayor’s IT sub-cabinet. One of the first things I did was created a board of directors for how we run technology in the City. Because we don’t want the perception that IT is doing IT projects to benefit IT. So, now we have a group of 10 department directors who meet on a quarterly basis, who help develop the strategy and advice the new department. this includes folks like Fire Chief, Police Chief, Deputy Mayor, who chairs the group, City Light and others. I keyed up for them this notion of starting our 2017-18 strategic agenda. I pitched to them what I think are our initial priorities based on what I understand are department interests, and over the next two months, I’ll be meeting one on one with department directors to really hone priorities. I want to get the feedback of Amy Hirotaka and Jose Vasquez. Once it’s a little bit more baked, I’d like to get this group’s input and thoughts, as well.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you. Are there any more questions for Michael?

Lloyd Douglas: Is there going to be a organizational chart someplace?

Michael Mattmiller: There is. And it’s actually fascinating. For our open house last week, we printed out our organizational chart, which, if you can imagine 650 people in a multi-tiered organization, there were about eight people to have a 12-point font. We don’t quite have that translated yet into the detailed org chart that has all the position IDs and funding sources on it yet. We will have that live within the next week or two at

Carmen Rahm: At the Mayor’s Education Summit that’s coming up. The synergy between Digital Equity and the Education Summit–and the partnership is so obvious–that anything that this group or you can do to promote how the Digital Equity and everything else going on, and the partnership between my department and your department to benefit education for the City, please take advantage of that. Because the collaboration there is so obvious now.

Michael Mattmiller: Thank you. I will proffer that. Carmen, that makes me think that we should probably do a joint meeting between our leadership teams sometime soon.

Carmen Rahm:  I would like that. If we could plan that and get that on our schedule, that would be great.

Dan Moulton: You mentioned the consolidation and the new board of directors. Does this mean–I didn’t catch your answer–there will be a new office that goes across that partnership and those directors?

Michael Mattmiller: We do. Two things: We have the governance of the Department of Technology in the City, and that governance is controlled by the Municipal Code, the Mayor’s IT sub-cabinet, and a business steering committee we’re forming underneath it to prioritized projects. And then we have CTAB that is our community voice for this process. On the management side, we have a Director of Strategy and Planning, and within his portfolio is a PMO that is responsible for the execution of our large scale projects. We also have a portfolio team that produces a quarterly report so we can balance what’s on the portfolio, manage risks, and give this information to the City on what’s happening.

Dan Moulton: Do they come into a single point?

Michael Mattmiller: There’s the senior manager, the PMO, who reports to the director of strategy and planning, who reports to me.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, Michael.

Michael Mattmiller:  And I’m going to apologize and go get ready for a speech I have to make tomorrow.


Amy Hirotaka: Next on our agenda is Candace Faber.


Candace Faber: My name is Candace Faber and I know a lot of people in this room. For those who I haven’t met yet, I’ll just tell you a little bit about my life before I joined the City.  I’ve been with the IT department here since last December. I am midway through my fifth month. I worked with the City IT Department a little bit before that. In 2015, I ran the Hack The Commute initiative, which we were Skyped in from the launch of the project. I’ve been involved in civic technology in Seattle for a few years, since I moved here  and got engaged with Open Seattle. In 2013, I hacked to end homelessness. In 2014, I did a variety of other work at the intersection of hacking public policy. When Michael said he was ready to hire someone who could bring some of that work into the City and start making connections that are needed with City departments to scale up, I was very excited and it’s been ‘drinking from the firehose’ ever since. So, I’m happy to be here and get a little bit of an introduction into what CTAB is, what you do, what you’re interested in, and how we might be able to work together in setting up new programs in the City.

I have a walking doc, which is very much like a living draft. More on the principles of what we’re doing. And I can talk a little more specifically afterwards with a Q and A about what my work has been so far. But I thought for this group, it might be interesting to get a sense of the vision. Have patience, because this was initially intended for cabinet, and I would have asked them to have patience, too. You’ll see why.

Download (PPTX, 25.37MB)

The bigger question that I’m trying to answer in this job is ‘what does a Smart City look like for Seattle. Often, when people think of a Smart City, it’s something like this. Futuristic, and things taking off, and almost being a scary, alienating digital space. Our vision here in Seattle looks much more like this. This is a photo from Hack the Commute. To people who showed up to help us work on potential digital solutions to some of our transportation problems, and ended up using a combination of hardware and software to create a package that would let riders know whether there’s space on the bike racks on the buses. Fairly small problem, but you can understand would be of particular interest to the bike community. I use this photo because our vision is really much more about collaborating with the people and the resources that we have here in Seattle so that we are focusing on problems that are really relevant in demand, not looking for applications of technology for problems that don’t exist. But focusing the work on the needs of the community and engaging the community in developing those tools, or at least helping us think outside the box in City government.

I have three basic pillars for this vision. The first is to empower departments with data analytics and tools that make it easier for them to make informed decisions and communicate with the public. Again, this is a pretty ambitious goal. We are just in the process of budgeting to get a position, to get governance. A lot of these issues are emerging as we’re implementing the new Open Data policy and recognizing the need for better data management across departments. So, it’s a goal, but it’s part of the vision.

The second pillar is to accelerate innovation through engagement in largely nationally and globally funded initiatives into developed technologies for use in cities.

The third is engaging our local tech community to design innovation that meet our immediate needs, and also strengthen our relationship with City government.

So, just a handful of things. I won’t go through all of this, but you’re welcome to explore later, if you like. Under Empowering Departments, this involves Open Data, so we’re hoping through the Open Data program to improve use of data, and data standardization and also communicating better across departments with the Mayor’s Office and with the public. We’re also providing tools. It’s part of IT consolidation, actually, to procure tools that can be used across departments. And then, Partnerships, helping them identify that technology or technologists might be able to solve. And then, Developing Partnerships, whether that’s with the University of Washington or the companies or community groups to export solutions. Under Accelerating Innovations, this is exciting because  a lot of this work is either completely unfunded or funded outside the City. For example, you probably know that we’re one of the What Works  cities, and that’s been hugely instrumental for us in trying to move beyond what we know and inside City government to take advantage national best practices and open data, for example. We also have an MOU signed with the University of Washington to participate in the national metro lab initiative. That offer is still very nascent, but we do have some projects underway. The goal is to export some of these long term research partnerships that can help us. I put some intractable projects, but a lot of it is really future oriented. Are there ways we could be using technology that would significantly improve quality of life for people in Seattle, or save us money in City government as we maintain a standard of service. The final piece, which is really exciting, is to learn how we can work together in community engagement. I’m particularly impassioned about this, so I’m happy to share more. I’m working toward creating a more diverse community of civic hackers, or diverse communities plural, so that there are a lot of different cultural spaces that people can show up in and feel like they understand what we’re doing and how tech may help. Again, this is all very much vision. I still don’t have a web page yet. But working to communicate, again on an ongoing basic with the public about what we’re doing with civic tech. I have this dream to create a public facing cultivated list of project ideas so that people who are looking for open data challenges to solve or civic problems to solve have a place that they can go to find out. And also really crucial right now is supporting stuff that’s coming from the community. Instead of doing everything like Hack the Commute, which frankly we don’t have the bandwidth for, looking for where people are popping up in the community that have a specific interest in applying their data, science, or tech skills to a civic problem and then figuring out how I can match them up with some insight and expertise, or data from within the City to enable and empower this effort. A great example of that is the Hack-a-Thon that we did last month. It was organized by AT&T, and had a lot of people from the community show up. We brought in a ton of people from Parks staff to participate and mentor. And also opened up 56 new data sets for anyone in the community to explore as part of that initiative. Coming up next weekend is something that is pretty light touch from the City side, but is pretty exciting. It’s Fishackathon, awkwardly named, but it’s a US Department of State initiative across 41 cities worldwide and every continent, even Antarctica. We’re doing a version of that event here that is being led by Microsoft, sponsored by Microsoft and Vulcan, with organizational support from the University of Washington and Open Seattle, and additional in kind support from restaurants and the Seattle Aquarium. That’s the kind of thing I’m excited to involved in. Just getting our tech community more engaged in civic issues and helping them understand what the issues are, and where those nexuses are where data and technology can make a difference. If you have any questions, I’d be happy to take them.

Dorene Cornwell: What exactly is the Fishackathon going to work on?  You said it’s the State Department and being done all over the world. Somehow, I envision the fishing industry and something maritime.

Candace Faber: It’s focused on sustainable fishing. we actually have the world’s leading expert on over-fishing at the UW School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, so he’ll be here to do the keynote. The challenges, themselves, are embargoed. They mostly touch on things that we don’t need here. What they will tell you is that the United States is doing a great job with Smart Catch and managing fisheries, but the problems that are happening elsewhere in the world are affecting our oceans and they are affecting our lives. It’s kind of cool to see. This is the first one that we’ve done in Seattle that I’ve seen with a real connection between local tech development and local problems.

Dan Moulton: Can you tell me how your work is to align with the Digital Equity Initiative plan? Have you created a roadmap for especially milestones and objective measures, or as we’ve found with the tech community, when they are allowed to self-organize, it’s always the same people. [unintelligible] It’s probably too early, but how are you planning to create roadmaps with measurements and milestones that includes low-income, lesser-served people inside the community?

Candace Faber: Yes, I think you’ll see that that was a condition of my taking this job. I was having a conversation with Michael about being able to focus and integrate into my performance in working toward greater equity. There’s obviously a lot of things that are outside of my control and that I don’t intend to control. I really like democracy, so I don’t intend to go into self-organized groups and tell them how to behave. But I am interested in creating a much more robust eco-system around civic tech.  And that means providing information and opportunities to anyone who is interested in organizing. Right now, my office and program is one person, so I’m not planning to do another Hack-the-Commute that the City is entirely responsible for.

Amy Hirotaka: Does anyone else have any questions? So, Candace, if we do have things that we want to engage with you on, would it be more helpful for us to come as a committee and speak to you? Can we email you individually?

Candace Faber: That is a good question, and again, it’s rapidly evolving, so right now I’ll say go ahead and email me individually, and three months from now I might say, “Please stop.” I’m hacking the process by having two sets of informal office hours. Basically, once I have collected enough interest from people who want to meet with me and set up a time, one of the sessions is in person and the other is by phone, and that’s really intended to be open to anyone who wants to talk about civic tech. If you’re interested in talking in greater depth about any particular issue, we can do it.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you so much, Candace. We will now move on to the Comcast Internet Essentials program.


Hans Hechtman: Thank you for allowing us to come this evening. Both Terry Davis and I have been with Comcast for longer than we would care to admit. Not that that’s not been a good place to be, but we’re getting on in years a little bit. We’ve both been around for all of our Internet Essentials program. We’re in the fifth year of that now. Comcast and the City of Seattle have been doing Digital Equity for over a decade. As you probably are aware, we have hundreds of sites around the City which we’ve provided service to for many years. And we’ve committed to expand upon that over the next decade. With regard to Internet Essentials, Initially, it has been geared to families with children. So the basic premise, initially, was if you were on free, and then we added free and reduced, and we’ve done other things to expand and innovate on the program, but the premise is if you have a child or children, and are on another program, then you can get broadband from us for $9.95  a month. Once you’re in, you’re in, so if, God forbid, your first grader is still on free or reduced in the twelfth grade, we hope everybody rises up and does well over the time, but if that’s the case, it is. You’re in at that price point. We will not change it.

It was initially launched as a three-year commitment. It was something new we were trying. We then made the decision at the end of three years, to make it an indefinite program. This is what we’re going to do moving forward.

It’s been well-received. We’ve done 2.4 million folks, 600,000 families nationwide. In the State of Washington, we’re a little over 28,000 families. Here in Seattle, we’re pushing around 3,000 folks who have participated in the program and are getting broadband service. What we have done just recently was to expand that to two new groups, one of which I’m sure you’re familiar with because you had a voice in this, and that is expansion to seniors. This is a group that we had been looking at and had done a couple of pilots throughout the country. In addition to the things we’ve done in Digital Equity, which I would remind folks that we are not necessarily doing in other cities, you all wanted us to bring our Internet Essential pilot for seniors. We were happy to do that as well.

There are a host of economic indicators that we can go by to qualify folks, but one of them is your City Utility Discount program. And I understand by talking with folks in the City that there are just over 6,000 low income seniors eligible for that program in this City. We’re hopeful that there are a lot of folks who will take advantage of this. Sixty-two years or older is the age, who are again fitting into one of those Social Security, Medicaid, Utility Discount programs, etc.

On the 24th–we had intended to do it on May 1, because it’s a new pilot here in the City–but it coincided that we then, on our own decision, expanded Internet Essentials to public housing. It only made sense, since we knew we were going to be doing the senior pilot here in town to try and bring that up, too. So we accelerated senior pilot and had that launched on the 24th along with public housing. So, if you reside in public housing in the City of Seattle, you have access to Internet Essentials. You don’t have to have a child on free or reduced lunch. You don’t have to be 62 years old. If you’re a resident of Seattle Housing Authority, and we serve that facility, you have the opportunity to get in on Internet Essentials as well. Obviously, just having launched in that couple of weeks, they are just getting started. They are pilots that are new. I think the future is bright for both of these groups nationally, but every group is different and we do these in pilots to try them out and see what works with an individual group so we can tweak as we grow it out elsewhere. So far, so good. There are different web sites for different programs. We have call center folks who take these calls. Full disclosure: We had a couple of hiccups last week because some folks in the call center didn’t know that Seattle was added. But we’ve made sure that they know that now. So, we’re off to a good start on that, but we don’t have any data yet to report to you. Again, these programs are geared for folks who do not have internet for one reason or another, and I don’t need to tell you what all the factors are. You know what those are. Part of the component is not only providing the service at an affordable price. We cover all standard installation fees. We’ve added wifi modems with that, as well. So folks that have tablets and things like that can take advantage of the service and we offer training in digital literacy, and online safety, especially for kids. We look to partner with community groups in delivering that. We’ve done that with Internet Essentials on the academic front through K-12. And for our seniors, we’ll be looking to partner with community partners in the City that serve seniors. To the extent to where we would want to develop a relationship with these organizations so that the seniors can certainly contact us. If that community partner helps them in a way and they call us and say that Mrs. Jones plays Bingo on Tuesday evenings and we know that she’s a low income person, we’re good with that. We trust the community partner there that’s vouching for that person.

Terry Davis: Everything he said is good. I just want to overview some of the outreach efforts that were done. From the traditional model, we work with the public school system. We do two direct mailings through their Kidmail process. All elementary schools, middle schools, and targeted high schools. We do that in the fall back to school season, and then also in the spring. That’s generated through their communication department. It’s been working very well. One thing with the traditional model is if the school 40 percent or greater free or reduced lunch status, basically the whole school is auto-approved. It helps speed up the process so that they don’t have to go back and forth with a hand-held application.

Carmen Rahm: And that helps, too, because a lot of families don’t want to disclose.

Terry Davis: Yes. That has really helped grow the numbers. So that is the outreach model. For the seniors, we stepped up in order to meet the schedule that was geared on both. This month, what we’re working on –Vicky Yuki from Seattle IT is helping–we need to connect with the low income senior groups that service this particular group. What we will be doing is getting them on as partners. If they agree to be a partner, we can sign them up as a referral group. That will be the auto-approved system for the seniors. It eliminates, again, that paper process going back and forth and helps speed up the application process. So that is really our goal, hopefully by the end of this month, is to really get that outreach and solidify. Because we know that people connect to this program when they touch base with a trusted resource and hear about it from a trusted resource. The don’t respond when we direct mail as much as a trusted resource getting them to say yes, this is a program that does work and is truly $9.95. And they’re not going to upsell you into something else.

For the public housing, this one is slow to get going but we’re working with the Seattle Housing Authority, as well as several King County Housing Authority in the unincorporated areas like White Center. We included the Shoreline area because there is a general Seattle address that goes along. We’re going to be doing mailings of the materials to those demographics. And the auto-approval system on that is that we prequalify addresses that meet the public housing designation. We’ve done a serviceability review of those addresses supplied by the housing authorities so we have them in our system. So if people call in and they know it’s a Seattle Housing Authority designated public housing address, then that eliminates that address in verification. We’rte trying to figure out the best ways to streamline the process. But we can always use more help, and I’m going to put two packets up here. There’s the housing authority, and the seniors. If you know of folks that don’t have an internet connection and could benefit from this, please share the information with them. The seniors does not have an online application. It is all done over the phone. It defaults to a professional installation so that we can make sure that it is connected properly, they know their wifi settings and all of that. Whereas, on the public housing it follows more the traditional model, which is a self-install kit that is mailed out to the families. We know that in a lot of the rentals, probably 99 percent of them have had Comcast service at one point or another, so it connects in with our system and they’re up and running. It does take a little bit of time to make sure we coordinate according to their schedules.

Carmen Rahm: How many families from school have signed up?

Hans Hechtman: About 3,000. In Seattle.

Carmen Rahm: And that’s 3,000 families that might have more than one kid.

Terry Davis: That’s correct. About 75 to 80 percent of those families are eligible for the program. There’s a great opportunity. We need help to get the word out. Work with our partners to do that.

Amy Hirotaka: We have a lot of questions.

Lloyd Douglas: For the seniors, will that be a mandatory install?

Terry Davis: The can opt out, but it defaults to the professional install first unless they opt out for a self-install kit.

Joneil Sampana: In regards to the partnerships with community organizations, two questions: Does that include faith based organizations?

Terry Davis: Anybody that is willing to help spread the word, we want to partner with.

Joneil Sampana: Is there a sense that you have on the reach that that organization has in the community?

Hans Hechtman: We don’t mandate. We’re happy for the participation and help. We don’t have a criteria through which we measure partners. We want to get to the most effective ones that we can, but frankly, we don’t have the resources to screen in terms of providing information and flyers. If I’ve got great performers and ten that don’t do as well, we’re not going to kick those ten off. Whatever they can do is great.

Joneil Sampana: Is it more on holding them accountable? Sometimes they still don’t understand it. That’s my concern.

Hans Hechtman: If we get into where we’re providing resources and things like that, obviously we want them to make use of that training and get folks in and train them. So, if you had a group that didn’t really perform, then I suppose that we’d try to redirect those resources to those who are performing.

Joneil Sampana: I was thinking of communities of color that might not speak English.

Hans Hechtman: We have 14 different languages that we can provide these flyers in, at this point in time. Part of what we’re doing right now with Seattle Housing Authority is to try to identify the different languages and how many pieces they would need. I was talking with them last week, and they asked, ‘Can we get about 500 of these?” I said, “We’ll give you 5,000.”

Terry Davis: The traditional and the seniors are available in all of the languages. The public housing is just coming out, so we’re trying to figure out which languages. I have ordered Somali, Vietnamese, and Russian at this point. Looking at the numbers from Seattle Housing Authority, that definitely is correct. I need to check King County Housing Authority. There may be some others. Korean may be another one to add in. When we say partnership, there’s a partner portal on the web site for Internet Essentials that anybody can sign up for. We will send you materials for free. Anybody can order them. There are posters, newsletter stuff that can be downloaded. All of the materials can be downloaded. We just know that people sign up for the program not through direct sale from Comcast. It’s usually word of mouth from somebody else.

Jose Vasquez: Two questions: One, do you have a list of your current community partners that we can refer people to?

Hans Hechtman: In the case of traditional Internet Essentials, it’s been primarily the school districts. With seniors, and public housing, I would say it’s Seattle Housing Authority and King County Housing Authority. With regards to the seniors, we’re just starting it. Literally, we’re looking for those folks. So, if you have any suggestions…

Jose Vasquez: That was my second question. It looks like you’re looking for community partners. With regard to working with communities of color and non-English speaking communities, are you funding these organizations? Besides just giving them handouts and some training?

Hans Hechtman: No. Not in the form of cash.

Jose Vasquez: Are you planning on doing that?

Hans Hechtman: Not necessarily. No. We’re just providing resources and materials.

Terry Davis: I would say that with the traditional model, we had great response from Urban League, and a lot of the Hispanic organizations, and a lot of different community organizations. Really, it’s supplying the materials for free. We mail it. There’s no mailing cost. That’s really the support network behind it. There are some groups that we’ve done trainings with that we have supported: Goodwill, which had a great training program in place; Urban League also had one that we had supported. Beyond that, we are open to the conversation, if there is a good, existing training program there, but we’re not in the process of supplying money to build one out.

Maureen Jones: Is it still true that if you’re a current customer, you’re not eligible?

Hans Hechtman: This is, again, a program that’s geared for people who don’t have internet. We have a business to run. This is for folks who are on the wrong side of the digital divide for one reason or another. We’re not the only game in town that has a program. Another provider has exactly the same condition.

Amy Hirotaka: So, to be clear, it’s a 90-day waiting period between ending service and starting a new one.

Hans Hechtman: That’s correct.

Nourisha Wells: You said this is a pilot program for housing and seniors? How long are you running the program, and are there capacity limits?

Hans Hechtman: No capacity limits. In terms of timing, I couldn’t answer that. We’re going to see how it goes. You can count on us to give it a good try.

Nourisha Wells: Do you have a goal, as Joneil Sampana was saying? Do you have a goal for what would be a good number for people to be in the pilot program?

Hans Hechtman: I think it’s too early in the program to have something like that. Again, Internet Essentials is ongoing and indefinite.

Terry Davis: We are looking to see if the pilot program is really sustainable. Can it be rolled out across all markets? And is there a need for it? I can tell you with the seniors, there’s definitely a need. There is a lot more that goes into the senior project than the traditional. I would say that you’re probably going to see the low income housing project roll out a lot faster than the senior, just because of the time factor for the professional install. But i believe that you’ll see that one roll out as well.

Nourisha Wells: I have one more question about the quality of the internet–the speed and all of that. Because students in schools where they’re being forced to do all of their work online–it’s not just downloading a PDF. They’re watching videos and all that.

Hans Hechtman: The service, when it started, was 1.5. We took it to 3.0. Then it went to 6.0. Now we’re at 10 MBPS. See the trend?

Carmen Rahm: The current speed is 10 MBPS?

Hans Hechtman: It’s a 10 MBPS service, and it is adequate to do all the regular surfing. You can stream video and things like that over it.

Karia Wong: I actually signed up as a partner, but my clients don’t speak English. Even after they sign up, if they have any issues with technical support, there is no way they have access to it. And then they come to us, a social service agency. That takes a lot of our time, to help them set up, and to call technical support. I’m just wondering, in terms of access, will you guys provide support to anyone who doesn’t speak English?

Hans Hechtman: We have started to introduce that. Terry, do we know what languages we have other than Spanish?

Terry Davis: I don’t, off the top of my head. It is a service that brings in interpretative services.

Hans Hechtman: So, it’s an evolution.

Karia Wong: A lot of times, when people call, they don’t know the background. They don’t know anything. Normally, they will come back to us. the issue is, you have to find someone from your side who is able to speak the language, to serve those people. Otherwise, it will cost a lot for you. And the problem will remain the same.

Hans Hechtman: Yes. So we’ll definitely continue with that.

Dorene Cornwell: Do you have any plan for people who are on the utility discount program to learn about your program? I think the City could probably facilitate that by saying, ‘You’re eligible.’

Hans Hechtman: I think the City has about 6,600. So I will provide 6,600 of these. The City can’t tell me exactly who those folks are, right? That’s fine. I’m happy to provide whatever the City wants.  There are different options. I don’t know if we have a tri-fold for seniors yet, or not. But we can get a piece that will work for the City, and they can let those folks know.

Amy Hirotaka: I think one important piece of information that we could use, is that we here at CTAB hear from a lot of folks about maybe issues that they’re encountering when they’re trying to access this service. Or they want to know which community partners that they could go to, for example. How do we get feedback back to you, and how can we follow up?

Hans Hechtman: That can be me. David Keyes has all my contact information. Just send it to me, and we’ll get those taken care of. Again, we’re looking at all of you to help facilitate the rollout of this, not only just letting folks know that you interface with regularly, but if there is a community group out there that you think would be a good candidate to be a partner, let us know.

David Keyes: We could go ahead and just figure out an email to send out to our list of community labs and things. Vicky Yuki has been working with Terry Davis on starting to list out who the different senior organizations are.

Terry Davis: They don’t have to partner if they don’t want to. We’re not forcing them to become a partner or anything like that. It is completely voluntary. But, we know that they’re interacting with the folks that you want connected to the internet.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you very much for your time. And now we are moving on to public comment and announcements. The floor is now open for anyone who wants to make a public comment or announcement.


David Keyes: There is this open source event in July. I just put the up there, since Candace Faber didn’t get it in. I want to encourage folks to look at that good opportunity to participate in the open sources community. I will send out, for people who are interested, on May 18 in Kansas City is a national digital inclusion conference. I’ll be there. And then, the Get Engaged program is recruiting now. Eventually, this fall, Iga’s term will come to an end. There’s actually a workshop tonight that’s going on.

Sabrina Roach: A bunch of us were talking about the Digital Equity launch, and we thought, well, the City is really putting its shoulder into it, and some of the corporate partners are really stepping up. What are the kinds of things that we, as a community group, can do to put some organized effort into that? Even if it’s some low hanging fruit. Even with apples on the ground, you can make some good applesauce with them. On May 11, 6:30 p.m., we’ll be doing an event at the 2100 Building. It will be an exploratory session for the Seattle Digital Equity Coalition. Once I make sure of that date, I will send it to David Keyes. This is wide open to everyone. It’s not a ‘by invitation’ kind of thing.

David Keyes:  I’ll make sure to share that.

Dorene Cornwell: A lot of you probably got the email. There’s a thing on Thursday from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. [unintelligible]

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, Dorene. I’m going to suggest that we take a five minute, instead of a ten minute, break, because we’re running low on time.


Amy Hirotaka: Next on the agenda, we have Carmen Rahm, who is going to be giving us an update on Seattle Public Schools Tech Vision and Update.


Carmen Rahm: A little bit of history: Two years ago, just as I was arriving, they had a big review by an outside agency on the information services of the school district. Their number one finding was that the district had no established vision for how technology would be used to support teaching and learning going forward. Some of you may be aware that last year, we held what we called our big Teaching and Learning Technology Vision Summit. David Keyes was part of that. It was very unique, the way we put this together. We limited attendance to 120 people. We had 15 students in grades from five to 12. We had 15 parents, 15 teachers, 15 principals, 15 community members, 15 business partners in technology, from Google to Microsoft, Intel,Dell, Cisco. They all came together at 15 tables with eight people at a table, and they spent the day with these teams making sketches of what they would see happening in the not so distant future. What the technology and what the students can do with technology. It wasn’t about the technology. It wasn’t about what kind of technology. It was about what they wanted to do with technology. We made it very clear with the vendors. No sales people here; we want your visionaries here. And it was so funny to watch somebody from Microsoft or Google make a suggestion and watch a fifth grader give him the raspberries. That’s what they did. Because it was like, ‘Yeah, that’s what old people do.’

So they drew 45 pictures. I just brought two of the sketches along. This was a sketch that was put together. A student got up and presented this.  This was one where a young high school girl got up, and she said, “I hate math. But I love soccer. Why can’t you integrate my love for soccer with math? If you can teach me math through my love for soccer, I’d be better at math. She talked about that and that’s what this is. How you can utilize that to learn statistics, and all of the different things that you can learn. And then I hand-picked out a special education teacher, because part of this vision has to be inclusive of all of our students, and have the equity not just across the district, based on race and income level, but also for our special needs students. This is one of the drawings that they made. If you count your traditional class, you can bring in your students from home. None of this rocket science. We’re not talking like holographic teachers and Mr. Spock coming here. We’re talking about real things you can have today. Students at home who maybe are mobility impaired and can’t get to school ever, or that day, how is your room set up so that you’ve got different areas where you can do different things? Imagine 45 of these, some duplicates, what we did was we said we’re not going to make a 20-page document that nobody’s going to read. We’re going to make it into a video, a video that someone can look at and say, that’s what students want in the Seattle Public Schools. That’s what their parents want. So this video is overall called a Technology Vision for Teaching and Learning, but the real title is A Day in the Life of a 21st Century Seattle Public School Student. So, we’ll kick this off if you can enlarge that, and turn up the sound.

(Runs video.)

Some of the feedback we got was, why are high school students not tutoring elementary school students?

This is why the Digital Equity Initiative that the City is doing is such an integral part for us to be successful. And I look at this, and you can look at this, and see that there’s nothing that spectacular there, because it’s stuff that we can do already if we have the resources and the funding to do it. There are actually two videos on this web site, and this web site is on all my emails as part of the salutation. The other video we created before this–because this was created by a student. The person who helped put this together said that one of the feedbacks they get on video from the school district is that you alienate a lot of parents, especially in poor neighborhoods, who look at the video being shot in someone’s home, and saying, “I don’t have solid wood cabinets and a granite counter top. This obviously doesn’t pertain to me.’ So that’s why we did the background sketches as part of the blue screen, so it was more generic. The other video, that obviously, we are not going to watch, was kind of a lead-in to this, that said, “Why is technology important to education? We had industry leaders and what is the state of technology in Seattle Public Schools? We’re actually very poor. We’re going to make some great progress, but like I told people when I took this job two years ago, I was told by my friends and colleagues, “You’re so lucky. You’re going to Seattle. I’ll bet their school districts has the best of everything.” Not exactly. But we know that we’re making headway on that. And then we talked about the fact that we were creating a vision and moving forward. We’ve got pretty good press on this. I’ve seen it in feedback from around the country. People have seen this. It’s just about how we can partner over the things that we are trying to do, and when I look at this video, I literally see almost every one of those 45 sketches. The whole summit was about ‘how do you want to use it’ to benefit your day to day, from teachers to special ed, to the students and parents. We’re really happy with it. If there are any questions or feedback, let me know.

Mark DeLoura: I’m just curious what your next steps are, for moving from vision to prioritizing a list of things to attack.

Carmen Rahm: The next steps are to create that strategic plan and that roadmap for executing these things, which we’re already doing. We’re looking at all of these things in here, to implement the single sign-on, to implement the consolidation to move to Office 365 so the students can partner more. We’re hopefully moving to a one to one program for students computing over time. We don’t have the money right now to do it carte blanche across the whole district. So we’re putting together that roadmap. Right now, it is looking out two years. It will be looking out three to four years very shortly. So we can put the stepping stones together to get there.

Dorene Cornwell: What is the link to your video?

Carmen Rahm: Let me send it, so they can send it out.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, Carmen. Let’s move on to the E-Gov update, which is going to be Joneil Sampana and Heather Lewis.


Joneil Sampana: Just a quick update. We have three updates. The first one, I will do, and Heather will do the other two.  The first one is the data internship for the summer. Last year, we partnered with the State of Washington. This year we met with Jim and Bruce Blood. We’re looking at doing that here with the City of Seattle in coordination with their data camp launch in June. We’re hoping to identify four to six agencies or partners that provide open data problems that students or other citizens who would like to get involved in this internship. We’re reaching out to a number of partners similar to last year, Socrata, Tableau, Microsoft. In addition, we’ll have Comcast this year as a new partner. And our WTIA [unintelligible] So, stay tuned. We’ll have an update in a month.

David Keyes: So, will the recruitment be going out for participants, then?

Joneil Sampana:  That would be in May. We send it out based upon the internship description. The basic requirement would be the ability to work over the summertime, work with a technology mentor as well as a City of Seattle mentor. By the same token, we will have a mentor description for the City of Seattle mentor because we recognize from last year that type of connection about how to interpret the data and how to tell a story. That may not be the skill set of a student but better from a technology mentor. The use of technology and a new way to visualize the data might be something that a student can provide.

Heather Lewis: Are you looking for mentors?

Joneil Sampana: We are looking for mentors. We’re leaning toward having Jim and Bruce identify them for the City of Seattle. Next two projects?

Heather Lewis: We are writing a Metro Lab quality memo with the community in mind. It’s in its final stage of review from the tech lab. And then the other project that we’re working on is the editorial calendar. We are looking for events to help populate it. Right now, we have about 12 to 15 calendars around the City that we have incorporated into one calendar that we’d like to be publishing to the twitter account. But we are looking for events that would be other items that might be relevant to the broader Seattle community. So, if you have anything in mind for a specific audience, or that you think might be generally relevant to the City, please send it our way. I will put my email on the board.

Carmen Rahm: Are these technology related items?

Heather Lewis: Yes, technology related items.

Carmen Rahm: So, it wouldn’t be like integrating the school calendar, unless we’re having something technology-wise going on there.

Heather Lewis: It’s CTAB-related.

David Keyes: If you will send me a note, we can send that out to the fuller list.

Heather Lewis: Right now, we’re populating between now and December, so that would be the date range if you have an upcoming event. Please send them our way.

Amy Hirotaka: Oh, great! Derrick Hall just put up more information about the accessibility event that Dorene was talking about.

Joneil Sampana: Now that we have this calendar concept together, my hope is that between a number of different community members, on the CTAB or the E-Gov Committee, that they would be able to post some of these on an ongoing basis. I want to get a sense of our protocol in managing our Twitter handle–who can tweet, who can post. As these happen day after day, it would be nice if somebody could monitor that. I would share the responsibility or take a different approach to maintaining this ongoing communication with our community.

David Keyes: Similarly, if we can pull enough feed to our site.

Amy Hirotaka: For the Twitter account, I think that’s a great question that we probably need to have a conversation about. So, I’m going to bump it to the end, if we have extra time. And if we don’t, we can discuss it by email, I think. Because it is a very dormant Twitter account and I’m not really tweeting with the hashtag that much, so it’s something that we need to talk about. So, let’s move on to the Cable and Broadband Commmittee update, which Karia Wong is going to give.


Karia Wong: For the past month, we met on March 28. We have three main goals for us to work with for the rest of this year. Number one is we’ll continue to work on the recommendation to the renewal of the Wave franchise. The second one, we are planning to create and use for contacts, a spreadsheet to keep track and to engage past committee participants. The third one is to access penetration and adoption rate of the low income broadband program by Comcast and Century Link.

David Keyes: I would point out that Brian Hsi over here was really active in the committee last term. He’s an alumni of CTAB, for folks who haven’t met him. So, as you head into this round of franchising, contact him for mentoring and good advice.

Amy Hirotaka: That would be great. We’ll definitely hit up Brian. Are there any questions for Karia on the Broadband Committee? I think one thing I wanted to point out is that as far as the penetration is concerned, when we heard from Comcast, we had ‘this’ many families enrolled. And what we’re wondering is how many eligible families there are. Do they have a goal number? Sounds like no. Someone asked a question like that. But maybe we should have a goal for that. These are all things we are thinking about. Now, we’ll move on to the Digital Inclusion/Tech Matching Fund Committee update from Jose Vasquez and Nourisha Wells.


Jose Vasquez: May is out get down to the nitty gritty month for the Tech Matching Fund. I know that Delia Burke has been in contact with a few of you who have expressed interest in serving on the Tech Matching Fund review committee. Raise your hand if you have been approached, or it you are interested. The idea, when I last met with Delia, is to have City staff, CTAB representation and community. Also, if there are any community at large members that want to participate, feel free to contact me or Delia or David Keyes or CTAB. Because May 4 is the deadline for the application for the Technology Matching Fund. In addition to participating in the review committee, if you are part of our organization or know of any group who is interesting in applying, I know that we’re done with the workshops.

David Keyes: Yes, last week. And we had about 40 people at the workshops last week.

Jose Vasquez: So, the deadline is May 4, but you can still approach us if you have questions. There are a lot of ideas around and I’m still encouraging people to apply. It means more work for us, but it’s very rewarding work. And then, we’ll present to the CTAB board with the final recommendations. So, May is when we’ll get real busy with that.

Joneil Sampana: Jose, isn’t it a requirement for the applicants to attend one of the workshops? Or are you saying that it’s not required?

David Keyes:  It’s not a requirement to attend the workshop.

Carmen Rahm: If you get any from the schools, from the teachers or folks like that, a heads up as to what they’re submitting would be greatly appreciated. I mean, not that I have veto power, or would want anything like that, but if somebody is putting in for something like they did last year–they were going to buy 100 Chromebooks, which we are not supporting or encouraging in the district. I think it will work out pretty well this year because I think the group that had actually put in for Chromebooks have closed the opportunity gap. I got them to go with some lower cost Netbooks or things like that.

David Keyes: And I’ve told our staff to watch as we get draft proposals.

Carmen Rahm: I don’t want anyone to think we’re filtering. I don’t want that to get back to the teachers, because we’re not. But if we can intervene early enough to say, ‘hey, you’ve put this in,’ I’m sure they could amend it. And it’s not like the Donors Choose program where Paul Allen came in and said, ‘We’re funding them all!’ And I’m thinking, ‘Oh, no!’ We were talking about hunting down teachers who may have asked for 50 Chromebooks, and with those, what you ask for is what you get. I think through the Technology Matching Fund there is more flexibility. When you said you were going to get Chromebooks, you can get ‘these’ instead, as long as you’re filling the need.

Jose Vasquez:  With the one minute that we have left, I do want to announce that Nourisha Wells is taking over as chair of the Digital Inclusion Committee. So, congratulations.

Nourisha Wells: So, we’ll just work to figure out the time and place to get together once the applications are in.

David Keyes: I would expect, probably, in a week or so. The applications are due May 4. We’ve got them all logged in. We’ll do an orientation session for folks that are serving on that matching fund review committee. So sometime in the next week or so, we’ll start to look at dates for that, because that’s usually the biggest challenge, just getting a date scheduled.

Jose Vasquez: Some dates that we jotted down as potentials: May 11 kickoff of the review panel; and then May 25 review/recommendations. That final week of May will probably be when we actually spend a couple of late nights here reviewing all the applications. And if you can’t make it to the meetings, you can also participate via phone conference. It’s so accessible.

David Keyes: So, please make a note for late in the day on May 11.

Jose Vasquez: It’s not official yet, and subject to change.

David Keyes: The goal then is to have those recommendation from committee back here int time for the June meeting.

Amy Hirotaka: Great! Are there any questions?

Mark DeLoura: So this is not the first year of the Tech Matching Fund, is that right?

Amy Hirotaka: Right.

Mark DeLoura: Are there things that we can learn from people who got grants last year that we could apply to this year?

Jose Vasquez: Be open-minded. And I think we changed some wording from the applications we had last year to invest in more community driven solutions. And also I think the grants are going to be larger this year.

David Keyes: Yes, we raised the cap to $50,000 per grant. We’re really encouraging collaborative projects. The focus then that we just addressed it so that it parallels the three threads of the Digital Equity Initiative of those goals to encourage people to write to those and think about it in that context. The 2015 projects are underway right now. We’re starting to get some invoices and progress reports from them. The most recent one that came in was from Voices of Tomorrow, that was teaching tablet use and it’s working with low income child care providers, who also have to report a lot of data to the state, so it’s doing a lot of digital training and helping equip them to be able to do that and for them to work with kids and parents. They’ve got about 40 people that they’ve started to train. I’ll send out and bring in a progress report next time to share that.

Nourisha Wells: There are also press releases of the previous awardees that you can check out on the City web site.

Jose Vasquez: And I think you can see a couple of years back on it.

David Keyes:  Project descriptions are there, and then we also have on open data at we do have a database of all of the projects that have been funded.

Jose Vasquez: And I’ll be happy to answer any questions.

Amy Hirotaka: Great! So now we can move on to Additional Updates and Announcements. And we do have a few minutes, so if we could possibly talk about the Twitter account briefly? I don’t know who runs that Twitter account. Anyone? What is the password?


Joneil Sampana:  I have it somewhere in here.

Nourisha Wells: I never used the password. I just tweeted and used the hashtag.

Amy Hirotaka: I wonder if that’s not the better way to go. I don’t know how folks feel about that. I think that we should spend a few minutes trying to hash it out.

Brian Hsi: I know I had access to it.

David Keyes: It was changed from CTAB to seatechboard.

Joneil Sampana: This is in the context of having our CTAB assets serve as a community tool or resource, then it makes sense that we would drive that follower base, and then somebody could leverage our community to, let’s say, showcase the Comcast or another organization. When I first joined CTAB, I thought that was what the intent was. But building up that momentum and really to understand what that hashtag is all about, [unintelligible]

Carmen Rahm: I would be afraid that nobody would want to follow me. I’d be embarrassed.

Amy Hirotaka:  Do we have any board or new board members who would might be interested in thinking about this and how to move forward with our Twitter account?

Mark DeLoura: I could help.

Heather Lewis: I know that there are people who are willing to take turns.

Amy Hirotaka: So, first off, get the password.

Joneil Sampana: I can do that.

Amy Hirotaka: And then, second step, do we have folks lined up to start auto-posting?  That will at least make it active again. And then, third step, maybe Mark DeLoura, if you could start thinking about branding and all those good things. And then we would have the calendar stuff to push into it. Sounds like it’s going to be awesome. How can we fail?

Nourisha Wells: [laughs] Don’t respond to anything.

Amy Hirotaka:  [laughs] Never acknowledge anyone.

Joneil Sampana: And what we can do on an ongoing basis, we can show our engagement as CTAB.

David Keyes: If we’re going to do more tweeting, we can include it in the agenda that we mail out. If we know there’s going to be active tweeting during an event, then when I send out the email with the agenda, I can emphasize that. Or if we know we’re going to throw out questions to people or something, we can think about that. Michael Mattmiller tweets as Seattle CTO, we tweet DigInclusion. That’s been our community tech digital equity programs. That’s been me and a couple of my staff members.

Joneil Sampana: Is there a short list of some key local City twitter handles that we should continue to promote? Obviously, we have Seattle Channel, Michael Mattmiller, Candace Faber, of course, some of the other agencies, perhaps, when they launch something.

Jose Vasquez: Can we put into the calendar stories about some of our grantees?

Heather Lewis: That’s exactly the kind of gap we’re trying to fill.

Joneil Sampana: I did bring in folks from — the usual suspects. Let’s bring them into the conversation. Maybe this is a better way to do that.

David Keyes: We’re phasing out our monthly Brainstorm to be able to rebrand and re-strategize our integrated social media communications strategy with our Digital Equity Initiative, so we can have that on more frequent updates in byte sized chunks.

Amy Hirotaka:  Which would lend itself better to tweeting out articles that are immediate.

Joneil Sampana: If there are other assets like video, feel free to let us know. Because that’s a little more engaging.

David Keyes: I think on the matching fund projects, if you look at the list as well. We try and keep an eye out if there are graduations or events or something going on, and I’ll send those out. We just don’t always get notice from folks in a timely way. But if you’re interested in a particular project, it would be great, and anyone around the room, not just for those around the room, board members, I’m happy to connect you to do a site visit with those organizations to observe a class, or see what they’re doing, or talk to them. Or shoot a short video, as well. But it’s also just a great orientation to understanding what’s going on, from how they’re proceeding, to how they’re using tablets, to how they’re doing apps on the Duwamish. Tell me of your interest and Derrick, Vicky, or I can help. Also, it’s not at a really fast rate, but we’re having free cable broadband sites through our franchise agreements and we have those coming online as well, as they get installed. Derrick Hall has been working with those organizations to help get them connected with cable broadband.

Amy Hirotaka: So we have the content. We have to start pushing it.

Jose Vasquez: I was just looking at our CTAB web site, and is this our whole group? We should take a new picture for the new web site.

Amy Hirotaka: With that, are there any other additional updates or announcements?

Carmen Rahm: One thing I forgot to mention in my update is that we are translating that into seven different languages. That’s being processed right now using voice over.

David Keyes: Carmen did send out to everybody on the district services page…

Carmen Rahm: We have our technology service catalog and we have a public facing one that tells students and parents and community partners what technology service will be, which is limited. We have a huge one for staff and such. I wanted to talk with Hans and Terry before they left because they work with the communications department and put something in the mail that went out to all of the parents at the beginning of the school year on Internet Essentials, which is surprising because our our communications department is usually telling me that we can’t do things like that because that is illegal to promote a certain vendor. But the way we did, which I think is above board, is put it in our service catalog, which shows all the things that we provide, and one of them is accessing low cost computer, accessing low cost mobile phones, getting free internet access or low cost. And then when you click on that it comes up with the service catalog that says that these services can be reached through the Digital Equity Initiative of the City. And we take you to the specific page on the City’s site that talks about the Comcast program, the Century Link program, Interconnection. All of these things are out there now, so that if any of those students or their parents or our community partners who want access and they do go to our service catalog quite a bit. They now have access to everything the City provides.

David Keyes: One other quick note that’s on the horizon: What was the Department of Planning and Development is now starting to incorporate and redo some of the City codes, based on making it easier to put the telecom cabinets out. To reflect what happened that Brian Hsi and others worked on with the cabinets over the past couple of years. And they’re also putting out a proposal to go into the code to ensure that low power FM stations are classified as a minor utility to make it easier for them to go through the antenna process to put those low power stations up. The first low power station just became live a couple of weeks ago from Seattle University. The other ones are fairly soon to follow. They’re working on permitting for six other stations in Seattle. Might be interesting if you wanted to do an update at some point at a CTAB meeting. It’s about a three to four mile radius, depending upon the terrain.

Amy Hirotaka: As far as Action Items, I put Candace’s information up there. If you want to contact her, she’s very active on Twitter at CivicTechSea. And then, Jose, are folks going to follow up with you or are you going to follow up with them and connect with Delia Burke about TMF? Tentatively, May 11 would be the long day for reviews.

David Keyes: No, May 11 would be the initial orientation and getting the projects to review.

Jose Vasquez: May 25 would be the week we’re targeting.

Amy Hirotaka: And David will send around [unintelligible] contact information? And you will be the central point of contact for us? Did I miss anything that we need to follow up on?

Jose Vasquez: Twitter password?

Amy Hirotaka: Right. All right, with that, we will adjourn the meeting.







April 12th, 2016, Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board Agenda

City of Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board
Draft Meeting Agenda

April 12th, 2016, 6-8 pm
Location: Room 2750 (27th floor), Seattle Municipal Tower: 700 – Fifth Avenue

Introductions, including new members 5
Approval of agenda and March minutes 2
Chief Technology Officer Report: Michael Mattmiller 10
Seattle Civic Technology Advocate work – Candace Faber 10
Comcast Internet Essentials program: Hans Hechtman and Terry Davis 20
Public comment & announcements 10
Break 10
Seattle Public Schools tech vision and update: Carmen Rahm 15
E-gov update: Joneil Sampana and Heather Lewis 10
Cable & Broadband committee update 5
Digital Inclusion (incl Tech matching Fund): Jose Vasquez & Nourisha Wells 5
Any additional updates or announcements 10
Wrap up and next meeting 5

You can follow or comment to the Board on Twitter: @SeaTechBoard.   Information for the Board can also be sent to



March 8, 2016 minutes – Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board

Topics covered included: Intro of Digital Engagement Director Jim Loter; Broadband Speed Test Map and Open Data Initiative by Bruce Blood; David Keyes presented the Digital Equity launch and HUD ConnectHome project; Tony Perez discussed the Wave franchise renewal schedule; John Giamberso made a Seattle Channel Diversity report; David Keyes discussed the upcoming Technology Matching Fund cycle.

This meeting was held:  March 8, 2016; 6:00-8:00 p.m., Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2750

Podcasts available at:

Attending: 24

Board Members:  Amy Hirotaka, Joneil Sampana, Karia Wong, Iga Fikayo Keme, Carmen Rahm, Nourisha Wells

Public: Heather Griswold, David Doyle, Maureen Jones (Solid Ground), Henok Kidane, Dashiell Milliman Jarvis, Kate Schneier, Heather Lewis, Sarah Abramawitz, Mohamud Yussuf, Dan Moulton, Kevin O’Boyle, Dan Stiefel, Carmen Rahm, Dorene Cornwell

Staff:  Jim Loter, John Giamberso, Tony Perez, Bruce Blood David Keyes, Vicky Yuki, Cass Magnuski

Meeting was called to order by Amy Hirotaka.


Agenda and Minutes approved with one name correction for the January minutes.


Jim Loter: Welcome. Under my most previous hat as director of IT for the Seattle Public Library, I’ve been at a few CTAB meetings, but I think under mostly different membership. I was with the library for the last five years and was very active in contributing to public computing and public internet access initiatives the library offers. Almost from day one, I started working with David Keyes and the staff of Community Technology with Vicky Yuki and others. I worked on some Digital Inclusion stuff with Amy Hirotaka back in the day and am very excited about the opportunity now to be here, actively involved in the Digital Equity Initiative with the City, working with John Giamberso, Tony Perez, and Bruce Blood and whole Digital Engagement team. I look forward to being here at CTAB every month and getting to know everybody here.

Carmen Rahm: What all falls under Digital Engagement?

Jim Loter: I think the unifying principle behind that is the technology services that the City of Seattle provides to the community, to the public. Seattle Channel, Office of Cable Communications, the Open Data Platform. The representative from the Web Team isn’t here today, but that’s a unit that’s within Digital Engagement. And then, of course, Community Technology. Those are the organizational boxes, but I think in general, certainly the Digital Equity Initiative is a primary movement right now, and will be for the foreseeable future. The Open Data Platform that Bruce blood is going to talk about is a very exciting initiative that we’re running. As I see it, it’s a collective and collaborative effort, including CTAB, to ensure that the City’s IT resources are used to help improve the ways in which people can engage with City government.

Carmen Rahm: Mobile applications and things like that to help citizens access City services would be under you?

Jim Loter: That would be a collaboration with our Applications Team. To the extent that the Web Team runs some of that stuff now, yes. Social media, that’s something that’s done throughout the City, but it’s an area that I hope to bring a little bit more of a strategic focus, which sounds very corporate, but I think a more intentional focus to the way that social media is used to help people engage. But the three pillars of the Digital Equity platform are connectivity, skills or literacy, and devices. And through really understanding that, our job is to advocate for the expansion of those services in the community, and to help people get access to information and be able to perform critical life skills online, whether that’s an application provided by the City, or something that we act in support of.

Joneil Sampana: Can we figure out a kind of scorecard starting from today to six months from now to a year, through which your impact or the team’s impact could be gauged?

Jim Loter: That’s a good question. The Digital Equity Initiative has laid out some of those success metrics for us, and DoIT, which will soon be Seattle IT, is in the process of adopting some performance measures. So, internally, for our operations, that’s the traditional metrics of up time, speed. But for Digital Engagement, it’s all about the impact that we’re having in the community. I haven’t filled in the numbers yet, or defined what that framework is, but there’s an active project within the department to do that, and it’s something that I hope to be able to bring back to this group within a couple of months. I’ve been on the job for about three weeks.

Amy Hirotaka: Any other questions for Jim?

Jim Loter: @jimloter on Twitter

Amy Hirotaka: Well, thank you, Jim. We look forward to working with you. A few other folks stepped in, so if you want to introduce yourselves, feel free.

More Introductions

Amy Hirotaka: I will now turn it over to Bruce Blood.


Bruce Blood: First thing, it’s actually the Broadband Speed Test. There are two maps involved. We branded it as the Broadband Speed Test, because that’s actually what we’re trying to focus on. I’m going to give you some background. Basically, this started as an idea that came out of a hack-a-thon last early May, where some people from the Open Technology Institute (OTI), a nonprofit based in Washington, DC, came and worked with the folks from what was then Code for Seattle, but now is Open Seattle. They started this idea of putting a speed test in a map that would show the results of that speed test for broadband speeds. As it evolved, it really became much more of a partnership just between the City of Seattle and OTI, and we’ve gone through a number of iterations in terms of what we wanted this to be. It is based on a software that was developed by M-LAB, a consortium of nonprofits–Open Technology is part of that and a major funder of M-Lab. But M-Lab developed the software. And the interesting thing about this particular type of test, our speed test as opposed to others is what OOKLA does is it never leaves the particular network you happen to be attached to. So, if you’re on Comcast, basically it just measures the speed from you to Comcast and back. It doesn’t go out to the other side. And what the M-Lab test does is it goes from wherever you happen to be through your internet provider out to M-Lab servers, which they have all over the country. They have five here in Seattle. It measures the speed to their servers and then back to you. Both of them are accurate and both will give you a feeling for the speed, but we feel the M-Lab test does reflect the actual experience that users have. I think the results are bearing that out pretty well.

We can do a test on the City network. [Bruce Blood and David Keyes demonstrate.] The one bug we found is when you have a connection with lots of people. as the City’s is, sometimes it gets held up. As we speak, through the City’s wireless at this point, that was your download/upload speed.

On a month to month basis, we put the results out. Once again, until we actually get the bandwidth, you won’t see a lot of these census blocks filled in. If you click on some of those colored blocks, it will show you the median down and up; the maximum, which is really interesting–obviously somebody’s got a gigabit connection there; and then the average round trip time. That’s really basically it.

Now the fun part is that we collect all of these. M-Lab has this huge worldwide database that is collecting all the results of many tests in many places, but ours takes this and throws it out on We have the data uploaded once a day, and it’s available for anyone to use. I have just started grabbing it and doing some pivot tables on it and getting some feel for what the actual averages are. It looks like, contrary to what the common perception is, the internet providers are actually doing a pretty good job. They are not advertising more than they are delivering. That’s one definition of doing a pretty good job. There are exceptions, of course.

In ‘About the Speedtest,’ it tells in pretty great detail how it works, what it measures and doesn’t measure, why the test results are different, and if your internet provider isn’t giving you the best service, what you can do. And you’ll notice that this actually aims people at the federal government, where they really do have jurisdiction over this, and keeps the phone calls to Tony and his gang down to a minimum.

The last piece is a gigabit availability map. We’re just about ready to update this. We will update this every six months, as the main three internet providers build it out. We’re only going to do residential. We don’t say that now, but we will soon.
there are other internet providers that obviously provide connection to multi-unit and commercial buildings. There are many of those. We decided not to put them on the map because it’s really difficult to map that stuff. It’s going to be on a building by building basis. What we will do is, if they choose to participate, we’ll take their information, put it in a table. We have some data on them because people test the data, and we’ll use that if we have enough instances, we’ll include them.

Henok Kidane: You said earlier that the information would be posted on, where would that be?

Bruce Blood: I believe it’s under City Business. The best thing would be to search for it. There probably is a direct link in the About page.

Amy Hirotaka: It is under City Business. It’s

Henok Kidane: I think it would be useful to see it on a City-wide basis. Is there anything in place to try to use it in some fashion?

Bruce Blood: We are aware of that. We have not actually done any kind of real promotion on it yet. We’re aware that there is a certain amount of controversy on this, and we wanted to get it settled in for a couple of months. We would expect April or early May to start doing some serious outreach.

Henok Kidane: My last question would be, since we’re trying to find out whether the ISPs are providing what they advertise, is there any link that you could provide [unintelligible].

Bruce Blood: Yes, we can do that.

Joneil Sampana: Bruce, I think he was referring to the controversy surrounding promoting this site?

Bruce Blood: Originally, when we put this out there, we got push back from the providers. We worked with them. Part of having the map is specifically addressing Century Link’s concerns. Obviously, the providers want to be shown in the best light they possibly can, especially since they are in direct competition with one another. We wanted to make sure that the City had a message that we all could agree on. There was some internal discussion about that, but this was the compromise.

Joneil Sampana: So the controversy has come from the providers, not the citizens?

Bruce Blood: No. The citizens only want more, and we understand that, as well.

Carmen Rahm: When it says, ‘Go to the FCC,’ is there something up there that says … first thing should say to contact your ISP. From the school district, I’ve had some real hard times up to this point working with my folks in the district, who say, there’s a site up there where you can get low cost broadband and things like that, and I can’t promote any businesses. What I want to do on the IT side and on the school side is to say, ‘Look into the City’s new low cost broadband initiative.’ And if I’m promoting the City’s initiative, I’m not promoting a vendor. It could say, “If you already have broadband, check out the City’s site and check out your connection and your broadband speed and things like that.

Bruce Blood: Obviously, we appreciate that. We’re still tweaking on this quite a bit, actually. It still might be beta, but we’re getting pretty close. We’re still making changes. any suggestions you have as you go through it, let me know.

Carmen Rahm:  We just lost our internal {unintelligible} as our framework is our internal service catalog for staff, and then we just lost our external service catalog, where parents, students, and the community can come to it. I’m thinking right now that we add one onto this: Broadband access for home. They can click on it, and we do not provide broadband access for home, but if you live in the City of Seattle, here are some options you have. Please visit this City web site. And if there are things that you guys can provide, that our customers might think, well why aren’t you providing that, we can link to them through our public service catalog. I think that would be pretty powerful.

Jim Loter: Could you go back to the opening page there? There is a little preamble here on Speed Test that also gets to some of the service providers’ concerns about this. They’ll say, just because your Speed Test shows this, doesn’t mean it’s our service. It could be your router. So we tried to address through the language all the variables that could impact speed on any network. They have a point but they’re also still probably the primary limiter on the network. The results have to be take with a grain of salt.

Amy Hirotaka: I’m without my timekeeper today. If we want Bruce Blood to have enough time to talk about the Open Data Initiative, we should probably move on.

Bruce Blood: If you have any questions on this, you can contact me at


Bruce Blood: I’ve been working on these two items for ten months. You’d think you could stagger them, but no. The Open Data Initiative went live on exactly the day the Broadband Map went live. We finalized the Open Data Policy in the middle of February. Then we had a very successful executive order signing event on the 26th, and at, you will find that and the overview of the signing off on the policy. What this means is we now have an Open Data Policy, and the highlight of it is that we are opening. The departments are required to make their data open by preference. Not by default, by preference. It’s pretty key that you understand what we’re talking about here. That is how we built in the caveat that all of our data would be reviewed for privacy issues and for security issues. We’ll go through a process. We’re actually getting some other things involved there where we will make sure the metadata is all up to snuff. May aren’t at this point, so we’ll be cleaning that up. But mostly, every data set has been reviewed for privacy issues, and we’re not talking only internal to that data, but also as near as we can by judging whether anything could be cross referenced with other data sites. The procedures for all of that are being developed as we speak. We’re hopeful to have a Chief Privacy Officer on board soon, and that person and I will be joined at the hip. we will be working together a lot to figure out how to make that roll smoothly. Frankly, it’s pretty easy to tell what kind of data sets we aren’t going to put out there. A number of data sets just don’t have any privacy or security risks at all, so that’s not a problem. There’s a perhaps a 20 percent gray area that will need to be talked about and will be evolving in our policy over time. For instance, sometimes we will put out your personally identifiable information if for instance a series of public disclosure requests have already put that data out on the street. Then the advantage becomes that we have better control over it if we put that same data out of or maybe even in some sort of redacted form. Ideally, we cut down on the public disclosure requests,, which very frankly, are overwhelming. It’s not fun.

What’s coming up is that in the next couple of weeks, we are essentially going to be engaging with the directors of the various departments. They are on the hook to identify in every executive department an open data champion. That open data champion is essentially me, the Open Data Manager, on the department. Those people will be my partners. They will be responsible for developing a comprehensive data inventory. From that data inventory, using input from any number of different sources, but including the community, prioritizing the data sets that they will start publishing. The open data champions are supposed to be named by May 1 In the second week of June, we will have what we call Data Camp, which is a big conference/training sessions for the open data champions, and selected others, as well. It’s going to be a three-day event. Hopefully, it will culminate on Wednesday, and we’ll run them through the full process. Departments will be expected to have their preliminary plans done in the fourth quarter.

We’ve committed to putting up 75 new data sets. Frankly, we’re almost there now.

Signing that executive orders means that this is real, 450 data sets into it. It will do a number of things. One, it will make the data better, easier to find, and better organized because we will have procedures in place, and the metadata will be required. In fact, before they ever submit a data set to me, they need to have figured out their metadata. That hasn’t been enforced a lot.

Amy Hirotaka: I think we’re running pretty tight on time.

Bruce Blood: A couple of quick things. Candace Faber is the outreach side of this and we are already engaging the community in ways, because of Candace, that we haven’t done before. And that’s great. We’re going to be actively taking their input to help us prioritize data sets. And by the way, the Mayor has told all departments that they will do this. Questions:

Joneil Sampana: I have two questions, the first one about policy. When each department comes up with their data policy, could they share it with the community under

Bruce Blood: Do you mean their data plan? Because the policy won’t change. The policy is already there, so they will put a plan together. The answer is yes.

Joneil Sampana: Let me clarify about policy. You have an overarching policy. Will each department, based on one example you gave, within the City of Seattle departments, is everybody going to be doing it the same way?

Jim Loter: I think there’s an overlay with the privacy policy that does grant each department a certain degree–or provides each department with some guidelines for what data they manage that they might have to redact or not make available publicly. It’s not necessarily a policy, but I think each department going to follow a set of guidelines that are specific to its data set, but that do not conflict with the overarching privacy policy or the open data policy. They can’t pass a policy that says that all of our data is private because these are local decisions we’re making. They have to be consistent with the City’s privacy policy. And when that Chief Privacy Policy officer is in place, we will be working very closely with that office to ensure that the privacy policy is consistently followed. So, yes, some departments might use some policy to influence some decisions they make about what data they redact, and what data they release in what order.

Joneil Sampana: If I see a data set, some agencies might put a definition of what a data set means and there is no interpretation of what that field represents, is that going to be a standard across the board when you publish it?

Bruce Blood: As much as possible. That’s part of the metadata requirements we’re going to be imposing.

Jim Loter: We need to develop a master data management plan that addresses the common elements that relate data sets to each other, and also issue standards that speak to the point that you’re making. To use a simple example, if one department has last name first, first name, and the other department doesn’t, then suddenly those two {unintelligible}. So we’re already seeing that in a lot of places, and so, as Bruce mentioned, this is very much an agile development process. In other words, we’re making it up as we go along. I think over the next probably six to 12 months, you’ll see a lot of that development. The reason I say that we’re making it up as we go along–I’m being a little bit flippant, but sometimes you can only make decisions once you’re actually looking at the data sets. And so the first stage is to identify the departmental contacts. and to work with them collaboratively to identify some high priority data sets. So we get to chime in on what we think is high priority based on what we hear from the community. They get to chime in on what they think is high priority, because they know their data best. So, I think it’s a good system that we’ve set up. And I think it will be very iterative as we build this out. To say that a decision made six months ago turns out to be a bad one, let’s make a new one going forward. There’s not a lot that we can know ahead of time, before we start getting our hands dirty with the data.

Heather Lewis: What can we do to help make sure you know what data sets we’re interested in. Is there a survey or something that you’re going to send out?

Bruce Blood: We could do a survey. I haven’t really thought about it. The easiest way is to send me an email with suggestions. We do keep track of those. And also, it really does help if I go and say ‘this data set has been requested repeatedly over the last year. Once we get this going, that will be fodder for the department to go after that.

Joneil Sampana: Can this go out externally? Is there a way to get a calendar of those touch points so that the citizens can come to those outreach moments?

Bruce Blood: Yes, we’re working on that, actually. There will be a civic tech web site. We’re redoing what will be the Seattle IT web site, and the Open Data web site, and civic tech contact.

Jim Loter: She’s also tweeting under a separate account now, so she’s out there twice. Candace Faber and Seattle Civic Tech, or something like that.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you so much. We will move now to David Keyes and the Digital Equity launch.


David Keyes: At the last meeting and the meeting before, we talked about the strategies, and I handed those out. For folks who weren’t here for that, during the break I can grab some copies of the Digital Equity strategies. The Mayor has signed off on the strategies moving forward, and we’ve set a date for the launch of the Digital Equity actions for March 22, at 1:00 p.m. in the Bertha Knight Landis Room at City Hall. We’ll have some announcements there and refreshments. You can go to either one. In some ways, that’s really the beginning of the work on implementation. As I mentioned, we started talking with some folks about the elements of that and how to work together. There’s lots of road to go. Within the strategies, there are three major areas: connectivity, digital skills training, and devices and tech support. Connectivity includes low income internet services, WiFi and so on. There are probably about 20 actual strategies to implement, which will happen over the next few years. We’ll be back to having CTAB and community members involved in that implementation. As you work with organizations and companies, there are opportunities there.

One of the things that we’ve been working on that in part also came up during the community discussions here and elsewhere. The project was helping public housing residents. Some of you may know that we’ve launched a project this past year that’s part of a 26-city demonstration project with HUD, called the Connect Home Project, that’s to work with broadband deployment and adoption. Part of that work was to develop some strategies to reach out to connect public housing residents, working with Seattle Housing Authority. You’ll probably hear some more about that. We’re working on convening, giving an opportunity to connect Seattle Housing Authority staff, initially, and connect some resident councils with education providers. We’ve got folks like Best Buy that are interested in providing things. Some other companies, some other learning services like Mouse education for early learners, who are interested in providing resources. W’e’re going to be having a convening in April. That’s another opportunity to connect those dots together around that aspect of helping public housing residents with connectivity and skills. Those are the two major things right now. I will mention also, another thing on low income internet. The FCC today just announced the first stage and put out their first announcement about the upcoming Lifeline Broadband Program, where they’re going to take their Lifeline telephone and make that eligible for broadband. I did a quick print out of the initial thing that came from the FCC. The full order is due on March 31. There are some significant things on expanding eligibility and naming multiple providers to participate in what is basically a $10 a month subsidy for broadband for low income residents. There’s a fact sheet from the FCC on the table there. I also printed out — not endorsing it necessarily–a group called Connected Nation distributed something through the Digital Inclusion Alliance today. This is their fact sheet. It has a slightly clearer explanation on it.

Amy Hirotaka: Are there any questions for David?

Carmen Rahm: Regarding the Mayor’s thing on March 22, should the school district be there? If I can convince the superintendent to be there, it would be nice if there was a little bit of acknowledgement. I’d hate to have him show up and nobody notice.

David Keyes: Absolutely. Let me know if he can come. We’re working on finalizing the program right now. I’ll be sending it out through the CTAB list and email so you all have an alert on it. But I think it’s also an opportunity both to celebrate together and thanks for all the work, but also to have people publicly say that they are committed to working together with us and are moving forward on the Digital Equity Initiative.

Carmen Rahm: The Digital Equity Committee members that were there, are they going to be invited to attend?

David Keyes: Yes. We have CTAB, about 25 Digital Equity committee members, round tables–there were over 100 people. We’ll have folks from the nonprofits, and the companies will also be participating.

Mohamud Yussuf: [unintelligible]

David Keyes: Comcast was part of our Digital Equity Initiative work, as was Century Link, as well, and Verizon, in terms of providers. Comcast is likely to be there with an announcement about their Internet Essentials program, and some other aspects. Some of you may remember that during franchise negotiations, one of the things that we agreed with Comcast that was announced early in December that they were rolling out a senior program. I think our role, as we have done all along, is let’s encourage competition, affordability. I know that there’s been discussion between the Cable and Broadband Committee about some of the bariers to people signing up, and trying to resolve ways that we can help facilitate that. This will also be a chance to talk to them as well. I hope that we will see more low income programs; we still have a need to more fully address that.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, David. At this point, we’ll take public comments.


Heather Lewis: The E-Gov Committee is trying to expand it’s social media presence, and is using it’s Twitter account in actively engaging the community. So if anyone wants to volunteer? We would like to be promoting various community events and the TMF and the internship program, and anything else that falls in line with the mission of CTAB. We also will be using a listening tool to gauge sentiment. We will be sending what we have to the board.

Amy Hirotaka: Great! And if folks want to contact you, who should they contact?

Heather Lewis:  I’ll write it on the board.



Tony Perez: I have a short PowerPoint

Download (PPTX, 77KB)


Wave is right now the sole provider cable and wired internet and TV in the central area of Beacon Hill, and Century Link is going to make some inroads there. The schedule for the Wave renewal. Some of you are familiar with this because last year we had a really busy year with the Comcast franchise renewal, the Century Link franchise, and the Cable Code amendments. We have one more franchise to go. These renewals typically last in Seattle for about 10 years. Before concluding with the schedule, I will spend a few minutes providing you with a contextual framework for how this renewal takes place. Briefly, there’s a federal framework under which we operate renewal and generally, renewal period begins three years prior to the expiration of the franchise. Wave’s franchise expires November 11, 2017. I won’t spend too much time discussing formal renewals rule, but the informal rule is what happens about 95 percent of the time. Informal just means that you negotiated a deal that everybody is happy with. In the event you can’t reach a deal, federal law provides what is called a formal renewal process. Everyone tries to avoid that. The main reason is because it’s a very contentious, expensive undertaking and at the end of the day, a judge could wind up deciding what each side gets. So nobody wants to do that. You lose control of the process. These processes do run concurrently and we have to comply with all these obligations.

Now in black down here, it starts three years before franchise expiration. Wave triggered the renewal in December of 2014. They sent us a letter saying, “We want to renew. We reserve all of our rights under the formal process, but we look forward to reaching an agreement with you via the informal rules.’ That’s fairly standard. Because they sent us this letter, we had a six month window, according to renewal law, to respond to them. Typically, the response is telling them that we have initiated a community needs ascertainment to assess the related needs of our community and to assess the extent of ways of compliance with the franchise contract. Just to play it safe, we had a small community meeting in May of last year, as a signal to Wave that we have complied with the initial requirements.

Next slide. This is just to give you an idea of what we want to avoid in the formal process. We can discuss that with the Cable and Broadband Committee at some point.

Next slide. There are certain things that we can ask for in franchises–certain things that we can’t. One of the things we can ask for is adequate network capacity for carrying channels, carrying HD, things like that, channel capacity, public education and government channels. Seattle Channel takes advantage of that, UW channels, Seattle Public Schools has a channel. So, we get bandwidth for these public channels. We can also require certain categories of programming. We can say that they have to provide public affairs programming. They have to provide Canadian programming, and programming that is relevant to minority communities, also news, sports, weather. We can’t say, ‘You have to provide this specific channel, such as The Wrestling Channel.’ We can’t say that, but we can say they have to provide sports. We can say that they have to provide Canadian programming. We’re a border state, so people really care about that, especially hockey fans. So we negotiated for Canadian programming. We can’t demand that they install fiber and get rid of their copper. Those are the kind of things that we can’t do. We can’t require or regulate internet, as we were mentioning earlier. But, we are probably the first community, even back in 2005, that said we’re not going to limit the  scope of our inquiry in the needs assessment just to cable, because we can’t pretend that these cable companies don’t also provide internet. When we do our needs assessment, we don’t limit it to cable. We look at internet, too, and we’ve done really well–better than most communities–in negotiating internet benefits through our cable franchises. So keep that in mind.

Next slide: An example of some of the benefits in the current Wave franchise that we negotiated with its predecessor, which was Broadstripe and Millennium Media. They didn’t have a basic service tier, because as a small cable operator, they’re not required to have one, like Comcast is. But we were able to negotiate for a more affordable tier with them. We got the cable discount, a match with what Comcast provides. We were able to get complementary cable modem service to nonprofits. We wouldn’t get that if we didn’t ask for it. And we pretended that that wasn’t impossible. We got fiber connection to Town Hall. The message is when we work with CTAB, we’re really looking at what community needs and interests can be addressed over Wave’s pipe. How can we get creative, looking at those things?

Next slide: Potential opportunities for CTAB: You will be one of the key stakeholders groups where we will talk with you as representatives of the community to learn a little bit about what you think the needs and interests of the community are. We also want to get your help, either through participating or attending two general community meetings in the central area. We still need to schedule those. And we’re also going to have a series of meetings with specific stakeholder groups. We had some really good feedback with the Somali community over the Comcast renewal, for example. So help us to get out the word and inform people. Encourage them to take the online survey we will have on the subject. We had 9,000 respondents to the Comcast online survey. We were really happy with that. If we can get anywhere near that with this process that would be great.  Again, in the past, Council has worked with CTAB to preside over these community meetings. Some of you are appointed by Council. Whether or not that is something Council wants to do, it’s up to you.

Amy Hirotaka: And is that something we can follow up with you about?

Tony Perez: Sure! Next slide: This is our high level timeline. This is our process. Basically, the needs assessments, which will include surveys, community meetings, we send cards to all the people ho contact us with complaints or questions about Wave service. We try to cover the waterfront, if you will, in getting feedback. We’ll also be doing legal, technical, and financial review. That’s the second prong of the ascertainment to determine how well they have complied with the law. We’re going to be doing a legal review. We’re going to be hiring an engineering consultant to assess the capability of the Wave network, and also examine how to make sure they comply with all construction and safety standards for the attachments on the poles.. And we’ll do a financial review to make sure that they pay all of the franchise fees and taxes they owe the City. The last time we did a review, they owed us a million dollars. We settled for three-quarters of a million. Take that as a win. In the latter part of this year, we’re going to start getting into negotiations in earnest and we need a new franchise in place. We probably have to get Council action in June or July of 2017 because Council is in budget season in September and October. They don’t want to do anything else. So, we can’t wait until October to submit the legislation. It’s going to have to be a little earlier, because the legislative process year is very time consuming. The moment we drop legislation, the Council can’t act on it until 30 days after it’s been introduced. They have to have public hearings. And then even after they grant the franchise, it’s not effective for another 30 days. So we have to take all of these time constraints into that, making sure that there’s a new franchise in place before November, when it’s effective.

Question: Did Wave have any interest in expanding the areas where they want to provide service? It seems like you’d want to encourage expansion.

Tony Perez: Yes. They have indicated that they are interested in doing that. Whether it comes together, we’ll find out. But what we did do last year in the Cable Code amendments, we eliminated the Cable Franchise Districts. There is nothing preventing Wave now from serving any part of the City. We hope that they meant it when they said they wanted to. They have a franchise right now. They can go build. We would welcome that. Whether three providers can make it in a specific neighborhood, that remains to be seen.

Question:  Follow up: I supposed that they were doing some sort of pilot project over in Eastlake for gigabit service. It seems like nothing has happened over the last year. I’m wondering if, as part of this negotiation, there is anything the City can do to encourage them to do something on that front.

Tony Perez:  I think Wave would say one way you can help us is by eliminating onerous permitting requirements. Obviously, we can’t do that, but to the extent that we can listen and where it makes some common sense, changes to streamline the process–we’ve done a lot of that. I suspect that at the end of the day, it’s capital constraints that prevent them from moving forward, not anything that the City is doing. That’s my opinion.

Dorene Cornwell: I was in a meeting this afternoon where there was a question about bulk internet. It came up through the Seattle Housing Authority and other low income groups. What is the conversation we can have to make sure that the buildings get wired? I was asked whether my building was interested in bulk internet. I said, of course, but [unintelligible].

Tony Perez:  David Keyes and I were talking about the same thing at lunch today. The companies like doing bulk buildings because it’s a guaranteed income stream. But the road block has been the Seattle Housing Authority. It might be worth another conversation because the discounts are significant.

Jim Loter: We have brought it up a couple of times. The service providers typically require something to limit their liability, which would be an investment from the housing authority. And that’s a risk. I’m not saying it’s a risk they’ll never be willing to take, but …

Dorene Cornwell: That piece is helpful. This afternoon, what I was hearing from other residents is that it’s not acceptable.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you. We really have to move on. We obviously have a direct line to Tony, because he comes to our meetings. And if there’s time at the end, we’ll come back to it. Let’s move on to John Giamberso and his talk about Seattle Channel’s Diversity Report.


John Giamberso: Before I get into it, for those of you who don’t know about the Seattle Channel, there is a one-pager up here. Seattle Channel is mandated to cover civics, culture, and communities of the City. We do all the meetings, all the press conferences. We cover the Art Zone. If you haven’t watched the Seattle Channel, is the place to go. Enjoy yourselves. We have a lot of programming going on.

Part of our mandate in covering the City is to make sure that it’s diverse. And the way we do that is we actually count the number of programs that have people of color on it, or content that has relevance to people of color. when we collect the data, every producer, when they do a show, check a box saying, yes, this has a person of color in it, or this has content that people want to know about. And that data is collected by our operations manager and our production manager. They put the data together in a report that I bring to you twice a year. That’s a way that we can see how we’re matching the demographics of the City. To jump to the end, the latest report show that we do match the demographics of the City. That means we have the same or more percentage of people of color on the channel that actually live in the City.

Basically, we break up all of our shows into different formats: our Art Zone; Book Lust; City Inside Out; City Stream. And we know the total number of segments. To speed the process up, what I’m going to do is I put 2014 on. You can look at that later.Let’s just dive into one show from 2015, and I’ll show you how we do it.

Let’s just take Art Zone with Nancy Guppy, one of our great shows. Nancy covers the art scene in Seattle. In 2015, she did 25 shows and segments. Just to clarify that, Art Zone is a show with a couple of different stand alone segments. So not only do we play the show, but we also play the segments. So, the same person of color could get counted twice if they’re in the show and also that segment. There were 25 shows. Thirteen of them had content that was relevant to people of color, which amounted to 52 percent. And 20 of the shows had a person of color on the show. So hat led to 80 percent of the shows. That’s the same thing we do for all of the shows. Seattle Speaks, Civic Cocktail, Seattle Voices, City Stream, Book Lust. I’m available for questions, if you really want to dig into the methodology of this: how we count and how we determine what an under-served neighborhood is, or any questions like that. But I do this report twice a year to CTAB. It’s a way of us validating that we are meeting the Race and Social Justice Initiative of the City, and that the channel does reflect the diversity of the City.

Question: Do you have data on the demographics of the people watching the shows?

John Giamberso: We’ve had a hard time getting that data. We’ve had some of the demographics from the Technology Indicators survey that shows us who is watching the channel. But the last survey was done in 2014, and that report is on our web site. It does show that the channel is watched primarily by…it skews to over 50; it skews to people of color. So, older people and people of color are one of the main demographics in that survey.

Heather Griswold: For a show like Book Lust, I see this past year, on camera, she actually had a change. It was down from 17 percent to zero percent. For a stat like that, are there things you do as an organization to promote that to work to change that. What are the options there?

John Giamberso: For Book Lust, there was content, but there were no people of color on Nancy Pearl’s show. We do talk to Nancy about that. Part of it is the dynamics. She basically takes authors who are coming in on book tours, so it is mostly people who are outside the City. We’ve worked with her to bring that percentage up. And that’s exactly why we do this, so that we can say, ‘where are we failing?’ This gives us the chance in 2016 to sit down and talk to Nancy and encourage her. That’s been pretty effective at different times, especially with low numbers of shows. If you only do two shows a year, it can get a little tricky. But that’s one of the main things so we know we’re coming up short.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, John. David, we’ll move on to the Tech Matching Fund update. I know that Jose is not here, but I know you can speak to it. We can reconvene with Jose later on, if he has other updates.


David Keyes: For the Technology Matching Fund (TMF) grant program, this year we have $320,000 allocated again for community grants. We delayed it some, as we got approval on the Digital Equity Initiative, and so that we can tie it to the strategies and goals for the Digital Equity Initiative. I grabbed some copies of the strategies and put them over on the table. Right now, what you’ll see coming out this year is that we’re going to have a more direct tie between the connectivity, skills, and devices and technical support goals. It’s not too much different, but in one sense, it is. In the past, it has been literacy skills and civic participation. So we think we can address the civic things in different ways, and want to focus on the key Digital Equity plan goals that are moving forward. Maybe in the future we’ll do some more work on the civic targeting things. That’s not to say that some of the TMF projects will not have civic engagements projects, as we’ve seen in the past.

We want to really encourage partnerships. We’ve seen some really good partnerships in some of the grants before. I think, as we’re looking at implementing some of the strategies around connectivity, marketing the low income internet things, helping people get devices at home, doing things like ensuring that there are quality classes in coding or in teaching English as a Second Language with tech skills. We’ve seen some great skill building and some great resources in the community around that. We really want to encourage people to work together. To that extent, we’re going to be encouraging the collaborative partnership grants that have resource building and capacity building and expertise in them.

We’re going to raise it up to the $50,000 maximum, so we’ll probably do fewer grants, although we may reach just as many sites through the partnerships that happen. Part of our role as staff is to help facilitate–making some linkage between the organizations if they’re looking for something.

We also had the discussion with CTAB and the Digital Inclusion Committee in the past about trying to provide some of the technical assistance, and use our workshops as a place to better match people.

We’re going to launch the materials for the Tech Matching Fund at the Digital Equity launch on March 22. It will be up on the web site, and materials coming out just after that. We’re going to hold workshops in probably the second week in April. We’re just setting those specific dates, and again we do want to facilitate groups. Some of you who also have resources or projects, I just want to encourage you to come to those as well so that, even if you’re not the person submitting the grant, you could either partner or you could be a resource. Carmen, maybe there are things to think about in terms of the schools and how we can get out the information.

Carmen Rahm: I was going to approach it a little differently. I’m wondering if there’s any way that myself or my team can be aware of what the schools are submitting before we award them $50,000? Because that’s what happened last year, when all of a sudden, I’m paging through the awards, and I’m going, ‘Oh, you’ve got to be kidding. They awarded how much to whom for Chromebooks? Because that’s not something we support. And I know that it came in through the PTA. Even at the application level. I’m trying to get the word out but that’s a little bit tough.

David Keyes: We’re just about to put out the guidelines and such, and we can fold in some mechanism for notice to us of the ones involved in schools.

Carmen Rahm: Yes, it would be nice to have something that says, “If your request is associated with Seattle Public Schools, you need to get Carmen Rahm’s signature before you can submit this. It seems like overkill, but it’s not.

Question: What’s the association with the schools?

Carmen Rahm: They buy the computers, give them to the schools, and now you have to support them. The application came in from the PTA, to buy ‘x’ number of computers and put them in the classroom for a special program. And all of a sudden, 50 computers–in this case it’s Chromebooks–that we don’t support in the school district. I like the school, but it’s the same school that I went into one day and found that every kid has a computer. And I said, how did that happen? And it wasn’t a computer. It was a Kindle. Because one of their parents worked for Amazon, and they had a warehouse full of old Kindles nobody was using. So they dropped 1,500 off  at the school.

Dorene Cornwell: I want to make a suggestion that maybe the TMF guidelines when they go out say something about it. Because I’m sure that the school district isn’t the only organization where there are some technology standards, and so if you’re going to be partnering with an organization, or serving a specific school, please show evidence that you considered technology standards. I understand that tech support can’t handle 50 devices running on different technologies.

Jim Loter: I’m glad you brought it up, because I’m not sure what our authority would be to make any requirements. But certainly we can issue guidelines that if you are making a grant application on behalf of an organization or whatever. That certainly happens elsewhere besides schools.

Vicky Yuki: We were considering a lot of these, and hopefully, the collaborative nature of the grants that come through that they will take into account partner needs, and also their abilities to be able to provide support. I’d welcome any content ideas. If you have ideas about types of programming, or stuff you would like to see, whether it’s around STEM or device type programs, assistive technology and such. I think there are a lot of categories, but how we work as partners throughout the City is important.

David Keyes: To finish up the schedule, we’ll have the workshops the second week in April, and May 4, will be t he deadline for the applications. And then we come to you all for the review. The month of May into early June is the time for the Digital Inclusion Committee to do the reviews of the applications and come up with recommendations. The review committee’s recommendations will come here for the June CTAB meeting to be voted on. Then, we have to go through the legislation process. We know that that will come to the City Council committee on August 17. Second Tuesday in June, they’ll come here, and then we’ll present to City Council August 17. Then, because of the holidays, the expectation is that it’s going to come to the full Council for a vote on September 6, the day after Labor Day.

That’s the basic process in terms of CTAB’s work and what is coming up. We’ll certainly send stuff out to help get the word out. We always have the review committee that’s composed of CTAB members  and other community members that are interested in helping out. If you’re interested in reviewing, Nourisha is having the Digital Inclusion Committee, so contact Nourisha or Jose Vasquez, or if you want to let us know toniight, let Vicky Yuki or I know, or drop us an email.

Jim Loter: I just want to say that David Keyes, Vicky Yuki, Delia Burke, on Community Technology, really deserve a lot of credit for pulling this cycle together this year, because we were delayed. And I think they came up with a number of really creative ideas to give CTAB members–to not require you to have less than a week to review the proposals, and to not compress some of the outreach time.

David Keyes: Thank you. And that said, we’ll also be working towards next year’s program. That’s a place to put on your thinking caps, and we’ll come back to you. Some things like doing a quick hit grant to help with equipment maybe. We’re just starting to look at what to do for next year.

Amy Hirotaka: Did you cover some of the main differences between what the form looked like  before and what it’s going to look like now, as far as requirements go? I assume it’s the same, but we were just waiting on the Digital Equity Initiative.

David Keyes: In some sense, we’re trying to minimize changes this year, for a few reasons. One is that Council is expecting it, the other is that we have limited capacity as to rolling it out. And we want to have enough time to do the education work with the community. Much of the format is the same. In terms of eligibility, we’re not making a major change to that. It’s still community driven projects coming from nonprofits. People could always partner with others, but it still has at its core that fundamental community driven projects, but we’re aiming that those strategies and goals that have been more defined in the Digital Equity plan. I think there is a piece moving forward that we’ve been talking about. How do we really help guide and ensure that people who are going through skills training are reaching certain levels of competencies. What does that mean? What is the degree between encouraging and pushing standards? We know that we helped about 4,000 people last year. It would be great to be able to articulate that 3,000 completed STEM training through this. 40,000 did ESL and tech competency. Looking for ways to measure impact from that learning, and that investment, and set a bar. Places like North Star, Minnesota Digital Literacy Consortium standards or other coding standards.

Amy Hirotaka: Any other questions for David?

Mohamud Yussef: I have a question. [unintelligible]

David Keyes: We changed it last year. Now it is a half to one match.

Carmen Rahm: As part of the Digital Equity, is the City aware, or do you guys coordinate any refurbishment and reutilization of computers to get computers into the hands of those who can’t afford them? The reason I’m asking, is that I’ve  got a couple of parents who are really hard on my case, asking why we are getting rid of the computers in the schools. Why aren’t I refurbishing and giving them out to families? I would be happy to do that. These computers are eight years old. Half of the keys are missing. They won’t run any of the latest operating systems, so I am not going to do anything those to get them into the hands of families. I would love to be able to go back and say, ‘On the City’s site, there is a link where not only can you get low cost broadband, but there’s also a link to where to get refurbished computers. I could put that on the schools’ web site.

David Keyes:  We’ve been working with Interconnection. They participated in the Digital Equity Initiative. Interconnection is a large refurbisher and recycler of computers. What has been great about them is that we’ve tied them to some of the TMF projects in the past. Our goal wit the Digital Equity Initiative is let’s try to increase the stream and ensure that there are quality refurbished computers coming out, and trying to make that as accessible as possible.

Carmen Rahm: Do you have a link?

David Keyes: Yes.

Carmen Rahm: So, I can link to the City’s site and say, look what the City’s got. But if I link to anything that’s viewed as a business, we get our hands slapped and told we can’t do that.

David Keyes:  If, in the Digital Equity thing, one of the strategies on working on this refurbishment is if we can get more companies and individuals to donate computers and designate them for City refurbishing to go to low income folks, we can bring down the cost for distributing them and for Interconnection to get them back out and make them more available for families.

Dan Moulton: Does Interconnection still have the program that if you’re really low income that you can volunteer and also be trained?

Maureen Jones: No. That went away because it was too difficult. They’re going to start up offering internet again, but they have to be paid up front. And you have to buy the modem. It’s a lot of money for our people, so I want to work with a bank, and they can take on that.

David Keyes:  This is the Mobile Citizen service that went away as Clearwire. Now it’s Sprint. They offer MiFi $10/month service.

Amy Hirotaka: Any other questions for David? Moving on to any other updates. Also, I was trying to capture action items during the meeting. We have feedback about Open Seattle. For the Broadband Map, you can email Bruce Blood at And David captured the email addresses on the board. For E-Gov, email Heather Lewis with any ideas. Keep a look out also for CTAB Twitter, because it’s going to be awesome. Follow it on Twitter. It’s @seattletechboard. Email John Giamberso with any questions or feedback at As far as TMF goes, I’m assuming that if you’d like to volunteer to review the applications, see David Keyes or Vicky Yuki now.

Joneil Sampana: For anyone who would like to participate in the E-Gov Committee, we are meeting the fourth Tuesday of the month at Impact Hub in Pioneer Square. 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Amy Hirotaka: And the fourth Monday of the month is always the Broadband Committee. We are searching for a new location.

Carmen Rahm: I have one last announcement, and I want to make sure it gets into the minutes. Fro my department, I would like to personally thank everyone in the City who voted for the levies for the schools, and the Technology Levy. I came here two years ago thinking, ‘Wow! Seattle! We’re going to have the best of everything!’ But Seattle Public Schools has the worst of everything. That’s going to change. We’ve got our plan. We’ve got phenomenal vision for technology that our parents and our students helped to put together. We just released it in our video, and I’ll get it to David with the link so that everybody can see the things that we want to do and are going to do because the students have asked for it, and the parents have asked for it. It’s not holographic teachers in the classroom or things like that. We’re not talking Star Trek quite yet. But we’re talking about getting the right technology into the hands–from the time the student gets up to the minute they go to bed at night. I just want to thank everyone who participated in that and voted for the levies. You put a lot of trust in me and my staff, and we won’t let you down.

David Keyes:  Brainstorm is about to come out and you’ll be getting it, but you know we’re doing this consolidation between moving from DoIT to Seattle IT. Megan Coppersmith, our public information adviser, just sent out a survey looking for feedback on what that new web site should look like in content. We would welcome and love your participation. I’ll send this out, too.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you. Does anyone have agenda items for next month? If so, please feel free to email me or David.

David Keyes:  By the way, we do know that Comcast is going to be here next month.

Amy Hirotaka: Yes, and it would be good to invite someone from Wave at some point. Thank you, everyone. Meeting adjourned.









EGov Committee Minutes for Feb. 23, 2016

Start time: 7:00PM
Location: Microsoft Building, 320 Westlake Ave N, Seattle, WA 98109

In Attendance:
– Joneil Sampana, Committee Co-Chair
– Heather Lewis, Committee Co-Chair
– David Doyle, Microsoft
– Sarah Abramowitz, Ross Strategic
– Jen Davison, Urban@UW
– Dan Moulton, Citizen

Brief Introductions (All Attendees) ……………………………………………7:00PM

Upcoming Events (Joneil Sampana) …………………………………………..7:05PM
2/29: Seattle Data Science Showcase @ Galvanize
3/8: Monthly CTAB Meeting

New Civic Tools (Joneil Sampana) ……………………………………………..7:15PM
Let’s Encrypt
– City of Seattle RainWatch Program

Old Business (Joneil Sampana & Heather Lewis) ………………………7:20PM
2016 EGov Workplan
– Pay-by-Phone Data Review: on-hold
– Possible ‘best practices’ to share with Open Seattle project teams via github project. Not much traffic current barrier to upload last years documents.

New Business (Joneil Sampana, Heather Lewis & Jen Davison)..7:25PM
–  Social Media Calendar – Sub-team created to develop Social Media Calendar. Joneil will present calendar to the CTAB committee for review to obtain permission to share Twitter account to committee members for use.
–  Citizen Engagement Approach as per City Accelerator Grant.

– MetroLab/Smart Cities
– Discussion and decision on key messaging based on “Smart to Wise Cities / Data Driven Inclusiveness” Theme. Jen Davison to draft initial position statement to share with EGov sub-team by 3/8. Joneil to confirm Trust Data Platform to use to host sensor data, including SPU data from Rain Watch Program.

– City of Seattle Data Visualization Internship, Summer 2016; Joneil to coordinate efforts with Bruce Blood and Candace Faber for City agencies willing to participate. Microsoft confirmed funding support for next iteration of this program.  Looking to host Best Practices on GitHub.
Examples projects:;

TMF Capacity Building Update – No time to discuss.
Meeting Adjourned: 8:00PM

March 8, 2016, 6-8 pm Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board Agenda

City of Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board

Draft Meeting Agenda for March 8, 2016, 6-8 pm
Location: Room 2750 (27th floor), Seattle Municipal Tower: 700 – Fifth Avenue

You can follow or comment to the Board on Twitter: @SeaTechBoard.

Information for the Board can also be sent to

Introductions 5
Approval of agenda and February minutes 2
Introduction: Jim Loter, DoIT Director of Digital Engagement 10
Broadband Map: Bruce Blood 10
Open Data Initiative: Bruce Blood 15
Digital Equity launch & HUD ConnectHome project: David Keyes 10
Public comment & announcements 10
Break 10
Wave Franchise renewal schedule: Tony Perez 10
Seattle Channel Diversity report: John Giamberso 10
Technology Matching Fund: Jose Vasquez & David Keyes 15
Any additional updates 5
Wrap up and next meeting 5


February 9, 2016 minutes – Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board

Topics covered included: Mayor Murray’s 2016 priorities presented by Ryan Biava; Councilmember Bruce Harrell’s 2016 priorities with Vinh Tang; E-Gov Committee update from Joneil Sampana; Broadband Committee report from Amy Hirotaka; committee structures and work plan development discussion.

This meeting was held: February 9, 2016; 6:00-8:00 p.m., Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2750

Board Members: Joneil Sampana, Karia Wong, Amy Hirotaka, Jose Vasquez, Iga Fikayo Keme
Public: John Tigue, Lloyd Douglas, Doreen Cornwell, Henok Kidane, Heather Lewis, Victor Bruno, Jeanie Lindsay, David Doyle, Christopher Sheats, Mark DeLouro, Dan Stiefel, Heather Griswold, Kate Schneier, Helen Baker, Puja Parakh, Dashiell Milliman Jarvis, Janice Tufte, Meredith
Staff: Michael Mattmiller, Ryan Biava (Mayor’s Office), Vinh Tang (Council President Harrell), John Giamberso, David Keyes, Cass Magnuski, Vicky Yuki
31 In Attendance
Meeting was called to order by Amy Hirotaka.


Agenda and Minutes approved with no changes.

Ryan Biava: I was here last year, sitting over there. This year, I’m here in place of the Mayor. I’m glad to talk about some of the things that we’ve been working on over the last year and talk about 2016. I also really want to hear what your interests are for 2016. I work with DoIT a lot, but this is really a great opportunity to hear from you specifically.
By way of an introduction, I started with the Mayor’s office working on government performance and tech issues. I’m going to show you the Performance Seattle Dashboard that I worked on. I also worked closely with now Council President Harrell’s office and DoIT on the Privacy Policy that the City is implementing. I started as a deputy director in the office a month and a half ago. I feel the need to talk about my tech credentials in a setting like this. So aside from a hobby of playing around with computers and obsessing over the sound that modems made as a kid. I memorized what they sounded like. I have some training in technology policy and a Ph.D. in political science with a concentration in science and technology studies. My dissertation was about privacy regulation in the U.S., Canada, and France and how and why they’re different. It’s exciting to have done that work outside of government, and now working in government to bring that expertise and try to figure out the best way to shape policy for the benefit of residents.
I’m not going to talk about the Mayor’s broader agenda. I’m going to talk about the tech work that we’ve done over the last year and what we have planned and on the docket. I will just say briefly that the Mayor’s goals remain what they have been in five broad categories: a City that is safe, affordable, vibrant, innovative and interconnected, and also available for all.
The major priorities that you see in the news are our major priorities every day. Housing affordability, addressing the exceedingly difficult and national problem that is homelessness, and continuing to improve public safety, implementing things like the Move Seattle levy. All of these are things we work on, but again, I’m going to talk about tech tonight.
All of the policies can be linked to what I was just talking about, but equity, affordability and good governance are things that the Mayor talks about a lot. All of them, in my mind, are related to what we do in tech. The Mayor talks a lot, both to the public and in our office, about ‘you don’t get government right if you don’t have good data.’ I spend a lot of time asking the question, ‘What did data say? How can we get better data? How do you use it in governance?’ I actually don’t think that you can know if you’re doing a good job and being equitable in how you’re deploying resources of policy if you don’t have data about the effects it has on the City. How many investments are being made in one neighborhood as opposed to another. You need to actually know that data and track it. And then figure out how to use that in policy making to make sure that you’re actually being equitable. To my mind, the wonky part of data is essential to understanding and being equitable in how you plan programs and employ resources.
One of the major issues that has been happening in tech over the last year has been Seattle IT coming into being. so, on April 6, a new department is born. I’m really looking forward to seeing that take shape and how to use its resources to come up with new and exciting solutions, innovative solutions for the City, not only for residents but also for employees. I think that it’s important to think about the folks who do the very important work of providing tech to the City itself, internally. To me, that’s as important as a group as any other group in the City.
Another thing that we pay attention to a lot is continuing to improve access to internet services. So this is an obvious one: Lowering the barriers for providers to build out; working with providers through key opportunities where we can leverage the City’s influence, like I think we saw in our franchise negotiations with Comcast. Really working to see that the end result was good and really got as much public benefit as we could out of that. And then continuing to watch for innovative ways of ensuring that broadband is available to all. As we continue to monitor the progress that we hope to see continue to be made by providers in the City, passing the growing number of homes throughout the City and monitoring them. Part of that is the Broadband Map the year before, as a way to ensure that we know. Again, we have good data, but what the experience is of Seattleites in their homes.
Lastly, before I talk about specifics, and I’ll show you a couple of web sites that we’ve worked on over the last year and a half, and talk about some other policies, focusing squarely on Digital Equity. So getting access to people that need it, skills training, access to devices. David Keyes’ team has done a really great job and I’m looking forward, over the next year, to putting that into motion.
I want to show a few web sites that we’ve been working on in the Mayor’s office and that SDOT worked on. Some of your may have seen them, so I hope that this isn’t too much of a repeat.
This is the site that I was mentioning earlier that I first started working on. This is the Performance Seattle web site. The idea here is to pick certain key indicators that departments judge their performance, based on. The obvious ones are, ‘How quickly is that Department of Transportation filling potholes after they receive a complaint?’ “How many affordable housing units are currently available?’ That is really important that we track that number correctly as we move toward goals of increasing that. I want to emphasize, too, that in the policy office, the work we do, we talk about how do you measure the policies that we’re talking about. That’s not always obvious to people. It wasn’t obvious to me when I started, and it’s really something that we pay a lot of attention to. Because that’s how we hold ourselves accountable.
Let me give you an example. I’m going to go to the transportation page, because that’s what I mentioned. It will break it down by category. So you have Mobility, Roads, and I’m going to pick the pothole example. You can see here the banners across. The orange one did not make target. This is something, too, that I think is interesting, because it shows that this is a Mayor who is interested in showing results, even when they’re bad. That takes a certain kind of leadership, i think. But it really is showing that we didn’t have enough on this, for instance. How do we improve that? So it’s not a question of pointing a finger at it. It’s saying, “How can we improve?’ Using data for improvement in that way, I think is exciting.
Dorene Cornwell: Could you maybe say what numbers you’re looking at?
Ryan Biava: Yes! This screen I’m showing now is tracking the goal of repairing. The goal that SDOT set for itself of repairing 80 percent or more of pot holes within three days of notification. So you see here, 97 percent. This is the final result from December of last year that were repaired within that time. And you can drop down and see the data over time. And if you go down further, it says, “Why is the goal important?” And lots of information that SDOT provides, historical data as well. This is all linked and built upon the open data platforms. If you link on this small link here, it will take you directly to the data set, where you can make other visualizations or uses of it.
The next one is Open Budget, I’m curious to know if anyone has heard of this. If you’re familiar at all with how the budget was presented prior to this website, you’ll know it was a PDF form that was very PDF formy. You look at the operating budget and it will give you the whole numbers. If you scroll down, it breaks it into Utilities, Administration, Public Safety. Let’s take Arts, Culture and Recreation. It shows you the budget and it will break it down to Parks and Recreation, Libraries, etc. Look at it on your own time. There’s also a Capital Budget that shown. It shows you where throughout the City certain investments are being made.
The last one I’m going to show you on the screen is a web site that SDOT launched recently, which is a Capital Projects Dashboard. Here, they have chosen all capital projects that I think are $500,000 and above. I’m going to click on one at random. This is the 45th and Market Street real time information system signs. It gives you information about the project, a link to the project web site, cost estimate, how much has been spent so far, and about accountability and transparency, it shows you where in the process it is. If it’s over budget, it will show that. There was one last week I saw that showed different information about that. So, another attempt to be transparent and to use data well. And not to have data just internally that we use, but also that we push it out so that the public can use it.
That leads into Open Data work. We’ve been working with What Works Cities and the Sunlight Foundation and University of Washington to really come up with an open data policy to where data is open by preference, but it is really integrated with the privacy program we worked on pretty hard over the past year. We’re doing open data and we’re pushing it out to the public but only when we’re not putting information out that violates privacy, or–and this is challenging–but really paying attention to the fact that if we put out a data set that doesn’t contain someone’s name. You can link it to other data bases and it will have a cumulative negative effect on privacy. We really struggled and asked researchers at UW to help us figure out how to do that. I’m emphasizing the degree of attention that we’re paying to this and the commitment we have to this.
Civic Technology: I’m really excited that DoIT was able to bring Candace Faber on board. She project managed the Hack the Commute, and has done a lot of work on civic technology. The aim really is to fill in a gap that we think exists within the technology eco-system in Seattle, which is, “How do you support say, a hackathon, after it’s over? How do you encourage the civic tech community to be able to organize? How do you connect it to government, and ensure that government is hearing how it can be helpful. And not just assume that we know, because we don’t, necessarily know.
I talked a bit about privacy, and the great work we did along with Councilmember Harrell’s office. This year, in the next month or so, we’re rolling out training for all City staff who handle data, so that they know what the privacy regulations are, who to ask questions of if they have concerns, and then working to hire a Chief Privacy Officer who will oversee the program and will be able to help implement it across departments, and serve as a reference point for the City. I don’t think we’ve found another City that has done that yet. So that’s another area that we are excited to be leading in.
I will stop by saying one more thing. The redesign. On Thursday that will be launched. It’s a tremendous amount of work that DoIT staff have put into this. It’s way better than the current site.
I’m happy to answer any questions and I’m also happy to talk individually after this, or you can make an appointment with me in my office.
Amy Hirotaka: Let’s open it up for at least a couple of questions.
Henok Kidane: Two questions. Number one: How often is the data refreshed? Number two: It’s great that you’re making more things open. For example, where you showed that you didn’t pass that goal on the pothole web site, is there a process for letting people see what was done after not meeting that goal that’s just as open as the initial process?
Ryan Biava: The first question is easier. The answer to the first question is that it’s updated depending upon how often the measure is taken. So, for crime data, it’s nearly real time. But for measuring the amount of affordable housing, I think that’s quarterly or half-yearly. So it really depends on just the measure. Is there a link between what’s shown and what measures are being taken to remedy if the goal hasn’t been met? Not yet. That’s a link that just hasn’t been made yet. This program is starting with what you see, and I’m happy to say that we will be able to bring someone to work on that site and other projects full time in the City Budget Office, who will have resources to update it more often, and pay attention to questions like that.
Dan Moulton: These duties are rolled into the Chief Data Officer, and if that’s the case, then I do have in contact a person who is a worldwide expert as data officer.
Ryan Biava: I think that will be useful for Michael Mattmiller to have. I don’t know if the City has sent out [a job description].
Michael Mattmiller: There are some really interesting models. This notion of a City Chief Data Officer, a CDO kind of bucket of things. No two cities run them exactly the same way. When you look at New York City, for example, they are very much focused on data analytics and building that capacity. I was on the phone today with the CTO down in San Francisco, and she’s very much focused on that governance angle, and they have some privacy elements in their program. Where I think you will see us be distinctive is in recognizing the importance of privacy as a self standing compliance discipline within our environment. So that’s why we are invested in growing that team up separately.
Dan Moulton: Do you have a CDO in the City?
Michael Mattmiller: We do not have a CDO in the City. So I’d love the contact, and certainly to follow up.
Dan Moulton: I just thought that the two would normally go together and you might also look at the Obama administration. They do have a CDO as well.
Janice Tufte: On the first site you showed as performance measures, what is it called?
Ryan Biava:
Henok Kidane: Last meeting, we had someone come by and talk about the redesign of Am I correct in assuming that if I have a disability, I will be able to use it?
Ryan Biava: The redesign, Michael, you’re going to have to answer the question about how many pages are going to be accessible from day one. But I do know that we’re building in ADA compliance. As to language, as you know, translation is difficult. But it’s a thing that we are paying attention to for the performance site. And we need to keep moving on with it.
Henok Kidane: [unintelligible]
Ryan Biava: Yes. That would be a huge work plan and that’s something that the new person in the budget office can start working on.
Henok Kidane: As a follow up to the last meeting, Jeff Beckstrom, our web manager, talked about maintaining that visible presence for translated materials and then looking towards working with CTAB and the folks here will be able to give some feedback and help design technology recommendations going forward.
Ryan Biava: The Office of Immigrant and Refugees Affairs, they have done some work on figuring out how to have web sites in the City translated more easily. I know an inadequate choice, which is Google Translate. Having used it myself, it’s not great, but it’s better than nothing. They have some thoughts that that can be appropriate in some instances, and there are others that might not be.
Amy Hirotaka: Thank you so much. And now I will hand it over to Vinh Tang to talk about Council President Harrell’s priorities.
Vinh Tang: I’m going try to speak on a couple of things, then I’ll open it up for comment. First of all, I want to thank all of the CTAB members for your civic engagement on behalf of Council President Harrell. I also want to give a shout out to Michael Mattmiller here, I think he’s done an excellent job as CTO.
Currently, our Technology Matching Fund is $320,000. CTAB, you guys are heavily involved in TMF. One of the things that we want to look at this year in the budget process, and working with the Mayor’s office, is maybe increasing that amount. There’s always a need for that. Over the past 20 years, it’s done great work.
Number two: Obviously, broadband is never a boring issue. Ten years ago, we did a report saying that in 2015 we would have fiber available to every home and business. That’s somewhat the case. The private sector does provide that service to some of the homes and businesses in Seattle. But, what some folks want in terms of delivering fiber to the home, obviously we are not at that point yet. From our vantage point, what we want to do–what we have done in the last couple of years–is to remove the obstacles in terms of the regulatory barriers. I think we’ve done several things within Cable Code to unregulate the market in Seattle. One of the things that we’re looking at is how we can be creative with the Housing Levy this year, as it relates to providing maybe free WiFi to all subsidized housing units. Or, potentially, in 2018, when both the Family and Education Levy and the Pre-K Levy expire, what we can do in terms of providing a technology opportunity fund, where we want to make sure that every student, every kid, regardless of what their parents’ income is, to have the tools to succeed technology-wise. That’s two years away from now. Legally, we’ll see what we can and cannot do in terms of a Housing Levy. When we do a levy for something specific, you can’t use it for something else. Those two things could be provided in subsidized housing. I think it’s not too far from the Housing Levy.
One of the things we did in the budget last year was to provide the MiFi hot spot units. Everyone in Seattle loves that. There was a huge waiting list. We added $200,000 to the budget last year. I think that there were 350 units that with the money they were able to add 400 units. But there’s still a waiting list for that. So, in the upcoming budget process, we’ll still look at what we can do to fund more additional MiFi hot spots.
Number three: Comcast rolled out their DOCSIS 3.1 in a couple of cities throughout the country. I think we would like to work with Comcast to make sure it’s coming soon to Seattle and Washington. We will have conversations very soon with Comcast about that.
We chair the Education, Equity and Governance Committee. We don’t call it ‘technology’ anymore in the committee name. When Michael Mattmiller speaks on Digital Equity in governance, it’s got a good tone, I think. Even though we don’t call it out, it still falls under our responsibility. Several years ago, we mentioned this single sign on and the public engagement portal. We conducted CTAB interviews earlier today, and one of the things that was mentioned was getting more folks involved, Ryan coming down here at 6:00 p.m. The reason why Councilmember Harrell brought that up several years ago with the whole plastic bag conversation. We received thousands of emails, but we wanted to push our questions to residents. And now with folks, seven years ago not everyone had a smartphone and apps and things like that. Now in 2016, it would be great if we could get more folks to sign on to, get more folks involved in terms of asking really simple questions about how they feel about certain issues. We have better technology these days with text messaging and things like that that I think we can build upon.
I read today in Gov Tech about how the State of Alabama got online registration available, and a bunch of folks registered online. And now the government has a huge backlog in processing those forms manually.
There were five drones. Even those regulated by the FAA. This is a public safety matter somewhat bu I think with Amazon it’s somewhat a technology issue. We’ve gotten emails saying, ‘Ban drones in Seattle. Don’t allow them.’ But if you go to the hobby store, you can buy a drone for $300. It will be interesting to get some guidance. I’m not sure whether you guys have worked on that issue at all. We had a bill a couple of years ago, ready, because the Seattle Police Department had purchased drones, but we had to send them to Los Angeles.
Number six: I think Michael might touch base on this, the Smart Cities Metro App project. The only thing I want to mention is that it’s a growing engagement. We would love for CTAB to help us.
Michael Mattmiller: I know that Joneil has taken that up.
Vinh Tang: There will be boxes and they will be on City Light poles. When someone looks up and sees a device that’s recording information, especially in Seattle, we have to be mindful of the privacy concerns.
Number seven: Councilmember Bruce Harrell is representing District 2, and one of the things that we’re working on is bringing a Southeast Economic Opportunity Center. It’s a very long term project. We secured a couple of million dollars through state funding, and City funding in the budget last year, but our goal with that is to bring an education and technology hub to southeast Seattle. We don’t know what it looks like. We’re working with the community. I’m not sure whether you guys have heard of that project or not. We have to secure a lot of funding. We want to bring in both the nonprofit and some of the major companies in Seattle to make that happen. One of the things as it relates to District 2, is examining policy to incentivize technology companies to locate in District 2 in urban villages. We already have the Light Rail line going through the south end, and there’s a lot of property. If you drive down MLK along Link Light Rail that’s vacant. Some folks down there say we should think about urban villages. Make it mixed use. Have companies down there maybe. A good example is the Harlem Garage. There is a [Hillman City] Collaboratory in Southeast Seattle. There was something–I think it was in San Francisco–where there was a tax break for companies to locate in some areas. There are pros and cons with that.
Number nine: STEM. We oversee education. I think it’s pronounced ‘steam’ now. Councilmember Harrell’s daughter was a student at one of the first STEM schools and it was very successful.
Lastly, the saying is in Seattle, we’re doing a lot of cool things. They say we’re not getting better, we’re getting worse. There are still a lot of things that we need to get better at.
I mentioned this in our interviews. The board comprises of 10 members now. A couple of years ago, it was 15. Something we might want to reconsider in terms of expanding the board. That’s one thing you guys might want to deliberate on, going to a higher number again. We don’t want to drive that conversation; we would like CTAB to make their own decision. Questions?
Amy Hirotaka: Thank you. Questions? Dorene.
Dorene Cornwell: You talked about the MiFi hot spots. Is that the thing you check out of the library? I know you go to the library and check out this box and it gives you unlimited connectivity for three weeks or however long you check it out. It’s a very cool thing, and I’ve been telling people about it.
Vinh Tang: That is correct.
Joneil Sampana: Great update. I was curious about all these work streams. Is there an individual person who is meeting each one of these nine items? Or is this bundled together?
Vinh Tang: In our office? Just put my name down.
Dan Moulton: On your drones, have you touched the State of Washington? There was a state law where you had to work with the State of Washington to get the research drones into the air to help with the recovery down there. Have you thought of unintended consequences of the southeast development? They will then displace affordable housing. And what are you doing to prevent and preserve affordable housing if you do decide to do it and invite a world of people down to southeast Seattle?
Vinh Tang: In my opinion, I don’t think one excludes the other. I think you can have affordable housing and technology companies.
Dan Moulton: San Francisco wasn’t able to do it. And they’re now over-running Oakland and pushing people out. The Central District has lost a large percentage of their African American population, and their identity due to this. We don’t have enough protection on low income housing. There are a lot of rules, regulations, and laws that prevent protecting tenants. And we have a lot of government giveaways to tech companies, so it’s an unequal battle with people of lower income losing.
Vinh Tang: I understand the comment you’re making. We’re going through the Mayor’s HALA recommendations this year. We have a housing committee meeting scheduled. I think we’ll be very mindful of that. I think as a rule, tech jobs will be made available to students down there. A good example is Tech Town. That was in Chattanooga. I know that there’s a robotics Filipino community center that’s in Southeast Seattle, but we’ve heard from the community that there should be more service. There really is no community college in Southeast Seattle. There’s one in South Seattle, but you have to go across the West Seattle Bridge. So compensation for this Southeast Seattle Economic Opportunity Center brings some sort of educational institution and technology to the area.
Dan Moulton: I really hope it is for the benefit of the people who are creating their own, as opposed to outsiders moving in. By the way, I do live in the area.
Karia Wong: You mentioned that when the Pre-K School Levy and the Family Program Levy expires in 2018, you guys were thinking to get funding to purchase technology equipment to low income families, so that the kids will have the tools. Just based on our experience, getting the tools is not that challenging. It’s how people learn to fully utilize the tools. It’s even more difficult. What is the plan?
Vinh Tang: Two years in school will help them use what they’re getting. The idea is not just to hand them tablets and computers. It’s actually providing tutors connecting students with mentors on how to use a tablet, how to code.
Karia Wong: A lot of issues with parenting now, is the kids are so in tune with technologies that create a lot of tension and conflicts within the family, especially with new immigrant parents. They don’t speak the language and it’s even harder because they just don’t have any idea of what technology can do. I think that’s the bigger picture when we talk about family support. Not just giving the tools to the kids, but how to support the parents so that they can parent in that aspect.
Jose Vasquez: Mine is more of a comment, rather than a question. Regarding the Economic Opportunity Center that you mentioned. Economic development is a great thing. But what’s happening in Seattle is the tech center has exploded but minority communities are not participating in that sector. If we are going to start talking about doing something, the City should prioritize working with the communities that are there. Developing that community, as opposed to creating an attractive hub for outside communities to come in and develop it. That’s been happening all over Seattle.
Vinh Tang: We’ve been having the community drive this, and figure out what the City’s role is.
Michael Mattmiller: I’d like to add to Jose’s comment. While it’s certainly separate from economic development, I want to share an amazing experience I had last month. I had an opportunity to chat with Megan Smith, our USCTM. We were talking about some of the things we are doing in Seattle, and she, along with the administration, are very passionate about tech diversity. She said there’s something very interesting about Seattle’s civic technology community, and how diverse it is. Specifically, she started describing Hack the Commute. It’s amazing to me that that was on her radar. It really is impressive to me just how diverse our civic technologists are. People that have skill that come together to make this City better. I really think groups like CTAB and Open Seattle for making sure that we are keeping our diverse community engaged with technology. So I think that’s a great differentiator for us.
Amy Hirotaka: Thank you. At this point, we will open it up for public comment.
Christopher Sheats: I just wanted to say again that is a new nonprofit. So that anyone and everyone can have can a free TOS. As of February 3, they issued their 500,000th search, so it’s quite popular.
Michael Mattmiller: On that note, at go live [for the new site], we had some things break when we turned on HTTPS for everything. So we have a milestone in August to have our sites turned into HTTPS.
Dorene Cornwell: You were talking about people getting involved. I was at a session last week where people were talking about some billing pages for Seattle City Light and Seattle Public Utilities. There was this strong voice of, ‘Don’t make it all automated. Make sure there’s people that can explain it. You’re going to assume that everybody is at the same level in texting. And my mother doesn’t text. She’s not quite sure whether she’s got voicemail or email, or messages on her phone. There are a lot of people like that. I have a friend who has had a stroke. She has a bunch of people her age who are helping her, and they’re at a level of tech savvy. I think tech is very important and helps a lot. But I also want to keep pushing the human face.
Amy Hirotaka: We’ll move on to the next agenda item. Joneil will give the E-Gov Committee Report.
Joneil Sampana: It is a quick one. A couple of weeks ago, we gave our January E-Gov Commitee report. We spent loads of time going over old business. We did want to talk about our closer alignment with Open Seattle, a continued effort to keep that connection with Open Seattle. Our update in on the CTAB blog for anyone who wants to see it. Our meetings are every fourth Tuesday, either at Westlake or Beacon Hill, 6:00 to 7:00.
Amy Hirotaka: I will give a quick Broadband Committee update. We look forward to diving more into it when we get to the discussion after the break. We have three major things that we’ve been talking about, the main one being better serving residents with with the low income broadband programs that are out there. We’ve heard from a lot of folks, Karia included, that it is very hard to sign up for these. We hear it over and over again. We’re hoping to address those and potentially improve them as much as possible. We’re also talking about the Wave franchise update that will be happening at the end of the year, and working more with Jose and the Digital Inclusion Committee, specifically, when it comes to these low income broadband programs. Are there any questions for either Joneil or for me? Those are the two committee updates, and we can talk more after the break when we get into the committee structures and work plan development.
David Keyes: You know we negotiated the Comcast franchise, and talked to them about the rollout of senior discount programs. That’s in the wings, too.
Ryan Biava: I would add one comment. Something that I’ve been interested in is figuring out ways for the City to let people know through official channels. There are other programs that the City has, the Utility Discount Program being one that you probably know about. Is there a connection between letting people know that you’re signed up for one, therefore you may be eligible for another. That may be something to look into.
Vicky Yuki: We’re trying to tie the eligibility criteria to the Utility Discount Program, because that is the most liberal, I guess, in terms of allowing people to have access. We’re trying to tie it together. And then letting people know about all of the programs.
David Keyes: One other piece coming up. Sprint did settle with Mobile Citizen. This is the conversion of Clear and Spectrum that they had had Mobile Citizen offering low income MiFi or WiFi program, and $10/month program for nonprofits. They are now able to do that conversion. You have to buy a new modem, but they are able to continue under a new agreement with Spring to provide LTE service through Mobile Citizen to nonprofits for $10 a month. People have been notified of that. Interconnection has worked out their next level of partnership with that. So they will again be opening that up again in the next couple of month.
Vicky Yuki: They will be offering a tier of service that will be very similar to the one that was offered through Clear.
Janice Tufte: You were mentioning about how we are hoping to connect people with the same basis of how you certify that an individual is able to qualify for programs. I don’t know if you know that between now and March 31, 40,000 people will be off Food Stamps in the Seattle area. We’ve had waivers that have been included. One of the criteria is that you receive benefits. If you’re able bodied to work and it’s determined. We’ve had a waiver going on for years, and it was just lifted. We tried to fight it, but the federal government said, ‘No, you have too healthy an economy here.’ So it is 40,000 people we’re facing. You either have to work, go to school, or volunteer 16 hours a month. We’re going to have a huge surge of people trying to find work, as well as trying to find volunteer work. The notice went out on January 22 for March 31. I just want you to be aware of this. This is a big deal, as far as criteria in all of the discount programs. You might have to change some things.
Karia Wong: I’m just curious. How is that going to work? Because I know with the Utility Discount Program, as long as the people live in the same house, they can combine their income to qualify for the program. But, for the internet program that we are talking about, they are just looking for individual household income that’s on the tax return form or pay stub. I’m not sure what the process is going to look like.
Vicky Yuki: That’s technically when we were still mapping it out. Right now, Comcast has just been asking for various different types of low income qualifiers. They have a pilot in Miami and San Francisco that’s been running. They’ve taken all of the discount programs that you could possibly qualify for. If you qualify for other programs in that city, you qualify for low cost internet. They don’t want to have any barriers. So if you qualify for Food Stamps, or Utility Discount, or any other low income program, then you will qualify for the Comcast. They’re trying to make it as easy as possible. They don’t want to have to do a lot of verification. They don’t want to have to review your tax records. It’s similar to how they’re doing it with the children, with the student population. Where if you attend a school that’s a Title I school, then you can qualify whether you’re low income or not. The idea is to build as much capacity as possible.
Amy Hirotaka: We’re going to have a long discussion on determining committee structures, and our work plan development. This is an important conversation to have, specifically because we did just hear from Mayor and Council about what their priorities are. David and Vicky have written on the board what our current committees are: Broadband and Cable, Digital Inclusion, E-Gov, and Privacy. At this point, let’s open it up and talk about the committees, and whether these are the appropriate committees, and how the priorities fit into these particular groups. Any thoughts about that?
David Keyes: Yes, just those couple of variables about the committees and all the folks in the committees have done a whole lot this last year, and a lot of the research and feet on the ground, and deliberation. It’s always a challenge as we go through this process every year to balance out how many things the board wants to tackle and how much time folks have. There may be projects that come up or short term things that may lie outside. For example, I know that next month, John Giamberso is going to bring the Seattle Channel diversity stats back again. We haven’t had a major project for Seattle Channel over the past nine months or so, but those things will come to the board. We don’t necessarily need a committee or a work item, maybe that could go to a project group. So, as you’re talking about some of those things, there may be some things that lie outside of that structure.
One of the things that has been stressed a little bit in the past, is the importance of the board communications. To some extent, every piece of project work or committee work has communications to share, so I hope we keep doing that this year. As you fold that in, make sure you have those skills. We do have the web site and blog, which Vicky and I help maintain with you guys.
Amy Hirotaka: David, do you think it’s a good idea to go through the committees and talk about where the priorities fit in?
David Keyes: Yes. If there is anything that you heard tonight, maybe run through some of those and ask whether they work in the existing committees, or are they something outside that need to be folded in some way. Then, as we discussed, the Digital Equity Initiative has three main threads: connectivity, digital skills, and devices and technical support. There’s a lot of development with the private sector and partners within that. Some of it may fall across committees, and that’s another consideration.
John Tigue: Do we have the opportunity to redefine the committees?
David Keyes: Absolutely.
John Tigue: The thing about the Broadband and Cable Committee now is that there is absolutely no overlap on those two topics. One issue can’t force the delivery of another. They’re both completely separate. And Broadband is only a subset of the broader topic of internet. So I would make internet one of the committees.
Dorene Cornwell: I think that there’s something to be said for looking at connectivity in a unified way, but Internet sounds too big.
Karia Wong: I’m having the impression that we’re actually getting more overlapping areas between the Broadband and the Digital Inclusion committees, especially with the Digital Equity Initiative.
Jose Vasquez: We have been seeing, particularly with the low income broadband adoption, there is overlap. I want to recommend that we append the Digital Inclusion Committee to the Digital Equity Committee to align more with the City’s goals. Because we have been working, not just on Digital Inclusion, but having conversations about Digital Equity. We’re not just about including folks. We’re also about advocating for community needs, and being that type of voice for the community.
Joneil Sampana: Point of clarification. If you do change a name, does that mean that the new committee will be focusing on all of the eight goals?
Jose Vasquez: That’s a good question. I picked three to start with. I feel like all of them could fall under it.
Janice Tufte: With the internet, with Comcast, people have both cable and the internet. Because cable and internet is more reasonable than internet only. We have to take that into account. There’s going to be overlap.
John Tigue: I agree with you, but we have no power to push what happens in one or the other. Although we might come up with the same wire–DSL literally is the same wire–there’s no relationship in terms of what we can do with the group.
Janice Tufte: There is no regulation with internet.
John Tigue: Well, there are, but they’re separate.
Amy Hirotaka: That said, we did leverage the Comcast franchise update, which did only have to do with cable, to ask for internet things. Although, legally, they weren’t required to do anything, the fact that we were able to call attention to it through the franchise update was helpful. From my perspective, cable is becoming less important, and sort of fading away as an issue that we’re talking about. I totally understand where you’re coming from, and I do think that they are separate, specifically when it comes to regulation. That said, we do use cable as a way to talk about broadband.
David Keyes: The context for us right now is that we do have that franchising authority when people do come in to do video. We just granted a cable franchise to Century Link this last year, because they wanted to offer their Prism service. The merging piece is happening a lot, but we still have some authority over things, which also connects to cabinets, which is another piece that we were able to work on these last couple of years.
Karia Wong: I propose that we combine the Broadband and Digital Inclusion Committees to Digital Equity or something like that. Because, eventually, we’re going to work together more often on these items that we are planning.
Amy Hirotaka: Are there any comments on that from either CTAB members or members of the committees?
Joneil Sampana: How large are the committees right now, volunteer-wise?
Amy Hirotaka: Broadband Committee is well represented here. If everyone who participates in the Broadband Committee could raise their hand?
Jose Vasquez: The Digital Inclusion committee hasn’t met over the past few months. Probably my fault.
Dorene Cornwell: I like the idea of combining Broadband and Digital Inclusion.
Jose Vasquez: Can I share what I think is the work plan for Digital Inclusion, and maybe from that we can make sense of it? I made copies. For this committee, the biggest body of work is the Technology Matching Fund. But since that is changing, we’re still not sure what that’s going to look like. I personally feel that that is something that we should be working on, even if it’s outside of the City’s Technology Matching Fund–if it changes name or whatever. Capacity building. I want to call that capacity building. I feel that that is something that this committee should be working on or researching. As far as aligning with the Digital Equity goals, improving digital connectivity in public spaces. I just basically wanted us to talk about how this board and the committee can work on that.
David Keyes: Just to mention a couple of things that we know are coming up this year: Council approves the money to do a broader WiFi strategy. Expect that to come back here. It will be an opportunity for you guys. We know there’s work that’s going to start to expand WiFi connectivity in the parks and Recreation Community Centers in the shorter term. This longer term strategy to ensure sustainability includes the Parks and Rec community labs, where there are six or seven of those in kiosks in Parks and Rec centers, and then there’s community based learning centers.
Jose Vasquez: So that goal of connectivity and improving digital equity in public spaces, I think that’s aligned pretty closely with the Broadband and Cable Committee. The second one, skills training, or more specifically, provide digital resources in support of community based organizations. That’s what I was talking about: capacity building within our community. How do we leverage the City’s resources to maybe bring outside investments to build the capacity of organizations working on digital equity? The third one, Devices and Technical Support, is developing technology support programs. How do we connect Seattle residents to technology resources that are available? There are many resources that the E-Gov Committee has been identifying. Or the low income program: How do we work with the City to promote those better? How do we get our community more engaged to utilize all these resources? Those are the three focus areas, and I want to get your feedback.
Amy Hirotaka: I agree with these goals. I do think that improving digital connectivity in public spaces completely overlaps with the Broadband Committee. I was trying to capture what might overlap and what doesn’t. The skills training doesn’t seem to overlap as much. Devices sort of does. And I think that if we were to combine them, there are still a few things that exist outside of the shared space. One pro would be that as the chair of the Digital Inclusion and maybe the Digital Equity Committee, you have been inactive for a while and there’s a lack of participation in your committee. So you’d have a ready-built group of folks who are engaged with their committee to start working on this big one, which is connectivity.
Joneil Sampana: I’ll add to that, just with something that is outside of the overlap. The funding collaborative: There is a shared interest in that with E-Gov.
Karia Wong: I guess one of the focuses of the Broadband Committee is to improve digital connectivity, especially for low income families. I’m not sure if that’s going to be an overlapping area, or going to be totally separate. Because we are working with those providers anyway.
Amy Hirotaka: What I’m seeing come out of the conversation so far is that Digital Equity is our over-arching goal. And it could be that we focus on Digital Equity in each of the other three committees, and potentially another committee could come up with something else, and have Digital Equity be the over-arching goal, but also there could be specific goals within each committee that move towards the end goal of Digital Equity.
Janice Tufte: Also the area of funding nonprofits is changing in June. United Way Puget Sound is really focusing on addressing issues of poverty, the root causes of poverty. So some of the funding stream is changing from housing services to addressing issues like this. There could be funding there as well. This is really a key component as far as education and the digital divide. All of this is a primary factor in issues of poverty. It’s what the feds, the state, and the nonprofits are all coming to right now. Seattle has been ahead in this game, but there will be more money there. So I think it’s smart to put the two together.
Dan Moulton: Did you strengthen the language to say ‘poverty elimination?’ Even in health care they say, diet and exercise. It’s been noted within the last six years as one of those ongoing chronic problems. Poverty is at the root, affecting the bottom line. Strengthen the language. When you’re talking about digital equity, that phrase has been used so much that people actually don’t believe that there’s digital divide. They keep citing the Pew research that says all have a smart phone. And I look at them and ask, do they have a data plan? My personal experience is that they don’t have continuous access to 21st century basic services that will help them learn or be able to get a job. I just think that in Seattle people don’t believe there’s a digital divide any longer.
Dashiell Milliman Jarvis: Just as a devil’s advocate for keeping them separate. I don’t disagree with anything that’s been said about the importance of digital equity, but just that the Broadband and Cable Committee, over the past year, has been very busy with just focusing on things like the Comcast and Century Link franchise agreements, the municipal broadband study, and a lot of discussions about things not part of low income inclusion, but general connectivity. A high tech city that doesn’t have broadband. They throttle gig speeds all over the city. We’re a country that ranks 27th. That’s an overall issue that’s not exclusive to lower income areas, but in different communities, it’s an overall issue.
Amy Hirotaka: Point of clarification. We’re talking about two separate things here. One was combining Broadband and Cable and Digital inclusion. The other was having digital equity be a banner goal of each of the three other committees, which is what I’m leaning towards. And it sounds like Jose Vasquez is, as well. Keep that in mind as we’re having the conversation.
Mark DeLoura: The comment that people in Seattle don’t feel like there are digital inequities really emphasizes the point that we should double down on having a group dedicated towards this. I think it’s pretty clear that that there is strong inequity, but probably people just are not aware of it. Maybe they’re not walking outside of their neighborhood and finding out what’s happening more broadly. Number two, I want to combat your Pew report with a CUNY Center report which came out. CUNY Center is the Sesame Street research arm. The report pointed out that yes, there are a lot of low income folks with cell phones that access the internet. But that is not equivalent to having broadband. The did research that showed that people who have access to cell phone internet were not spending as much time and learning as much. Dig up the CUNY Center report. It’s really interesting.
Dan Moulton: I fully support what you just said. To clarify, my comment was more in support of the idea that digital equity should be in the back of the mind, for each of the committees.
Amy Hirotaka: And specifically, the words ‘digital equity?’
Dan Moulton: We can keep it, because it’s polite. If you go towards talking about poverty elimination, people will start to have a gut reaction, and think you’re Bernie Sanders or something. But my point was just that this 21st century skill he just mentioned really–people don’t understand that that has so gotten to be so vital, almost like the invention of the telephone was.
David Keyes: I certainly think that digital equity crosses things to some extent that civic engagement is going to cross. Some of the different committees, no matter how you slice it, as well. One idea might be to keep a committee and call it Broadband and Cable or Broadband and Connectivity or something, so that that’s the connectivity bandwidth side of things. Some of the prep for the Wave franchise, the WiFi connectivity strategies, maybe some of the low income internet programs for connection. And now, if you will, the Digital Inclusion Committee to consider that focus around skills and devices. Because there’s plenty to do around that. I heard Vinh mention STEM support in school, out of school. Training capacity, some of the organizational capacity to be able to do effective classes and teach from basic computing to enable that scaling up of programs and things. And then E-Gov, we still have stuff coming up on open data, we know. Some things on civic tech. I’m not sure exactly where CTAB is going to fit in on this, but Michael Mattmiller mentioned, and you guys have already started on Smart Sensing programs. I think there may be a couple of things that cross, whether it’s Funders’ Collaborative or something. How do we bring in private sector folks to leverage the Technology Matching Fund or scholarships, or vouchers for devices, or connectivity. I’ll present a little more about this next month. We’ve been working with the Seattle Housing Authority on this HUD federal Connect Home around broadband adoption, which includes some elements of connectivity as well as wheels turning and the devices. That may be one way to slice it. Some things are a little too broad. It’s not to say that there can’t be a project that overlaps.
Nourisha Wells: I was going to say something along those lines. I do think that there is still a huge area that aligns with the Broadband and Cable Committee. What has been happening over the last couple of years, but I also think that it’s very important for us to recognize that you can’t talk about broadband in the future without making sure that everyone in the City is included in that conversation. I don’t think you can separate it. I don’t think anybody on the committee should be looking at that area without thinking about the entire City. But it looks like we have a work plan for all of the committees on this sheet here.
Jose Vasquez: That’s where I’m torn. I do appreciate the fact that it has its own space, but it should be an over-arching theme or goal for all committees. I think the Technology Matching Fund should appoint its own subcommittee, whenever we find out about that, because it’s community driven. I will fight for that until the end. And that, in itself, is a big part of the Digital Inclusion Committee, so that might be its role, and maybe expand on that a little.
Nourisha Wells: I think, realistically, as we have some seats on the board that are open, if we’re looking at what the interests are already, and what we have community support for as far as committees go, then we want to focus. Because we can’t do everything. There are only a few things that we’re going to be able to do well, and we identify what those things are and then align them to what we have. I think that because all of this stuff does include digital equity, then I still think we cover what we want to cover.
David Keyes: Just for reference, so we know, the Wave stuff will probably be mid-year. The first piece of that is figuring out what to do in working on the community needs assessment, to prep for the Wave franchise. There’s probably a piece that’s coming back, and whether this is whole group or one of the committees have it, Comcast and Century Link report on their progress. I know we’ve had Century Link do one update so far on the rollout of their gigabit service. They talked about their use of their low income program. On the Digital Equity launch, we’re briefing the Mayor and his team in about a week, and we’ve been in a holding pattern while trying to schedule a launch of that event, and more formal announcements of that event. There are about 25 people, including Jose Vasquez and Amy Hirotaka, who served with the Digital Action committee. So, I think think as we’re working on specific projects related to that, there are other folks that we can pull into those CTAB committees. I’ll have a better sense of that coming soon.
Jose Vasquez: My question is does any other current board member have interest in taking over the Digital Inclusion Committee, as it stands right now?
Nourisha Wells: Which is…? I’m talking about how it stands right now.
Jose Vasquez: I was thinking along the lines of chair and vice chair. I think that’s something we should be leading and guiding as far as all the committees. But Digital Equity makes it all connect with each other. On top of last year’s work, we’ve done a lot of improvement, as opposed to when I started, when I don’t think the committees helped each other a lot. At least that was my perspective. I also think that Karia’s proposal about merging the Digital Inclusion and Broadband and Cable Committees, I’ll second that.
Amy Hirotaka: I am going to advocate having these banner goals be divided between the three existing committees. The one hesitation that I have is that skills training doesn’t really seem to fit into any of those right now. But I do think that with a broadened capacity for the Broadband and Cable Committee, that could be something they could take on, but only if there are more members and more engagement there.
Dan Stiefel: We have a lot of members on our committee, but we’re always short on manpower. And you’re short on manpower. But you have a real specialty there, so why don’t you keep your committee, but you work with the other committees? We could use your expertise. In the given time, depending upon what we’re working on, there’s more or less need for it. But there’s is always going to be need for your specialty. And I think that we need to double down on that a little bit. And I think you ought to have your seat and hold your own meetings when appropriate, but be part of the other committees, too, as needed. Somehow, there’s a manpower problem in the middle of all this for the committees. I think when we create committees, we have to keep in mind what is the best way to approach that. It’s not just the static naming, and have a chair. I think there’s strength in both things, and maybe we should create a flexible structure where you’re a specialist and you collaborate with us all as we need it.
Jose Vasquez: I do like that. But I would like to empower others to do that work. Because if I’m involved in multiple committees, and at the same time, trying to convene my own committee, I don’t know if I’ll have the time.
Dan Stiefel: What I’m saying is, if something comes up, then we’re on that. Our work changes from time to time, and sometimes we have more digital inclusion and less, and it’s the same for you. Sometimes you’re working with us, and sometimes there’s something like the training aspect. So if something comes up that demands a lot of work for training, you just hold your own meetings and we will gravitate that way. I don’t think you have to be doing both simultaneously.
Amy Hirotaka: Maybe make it a more seasonal committee.
Nourisha Wells: So, outside of the Tech Matching Fund, what did you see as Digital Inclusion’s task, as it was before today?
Jose Vasquez: I know we had a lot of conversations about how to connect community organizations to t tech resources. I see those as the two main things. Everything else was more about how we interact with the other committees and their work.
Janice Tufte: The City has done what you’re proposing. The City has already integrated social justice with the Race and Social Justice Initiative five years ago. A few years ago, it had to be integrated into every single department, which it has. So that’s part of it. And that’s sort of what we’re discussing today. But United Way and a lot of the funding that’s coming from various entities is changing, not to eliminate poverty, but looking at the causes to see what to do and how to alleviate some of those problems. The digital divide is one of those main issues. I want to add that what we did as we testified for the cable, I reached out to four or five social services and other different agencies, and we had people come and testify on behalf of the low income residents. Karia also testified. So it was important that we had Seattle Housing, DESC, we had Downtown Emergency, a few different people speak. And that’s really what we did at that point in time. We brought in people who were expert. That would be something that we should be doing.
Dan Stiefel: And what’s going to happen here out of this work we’ve been doing with Wave? We’re thinking that there’s some funding vehicle that’s going to have to come. With the complaints that we see, there’s going to have to be some funding directed towards that, we hope. And we’re not experts on that. There’s going to have to be digital equity funding. So it seems that it’s a really important thing to have expertise on CTAB for digital inclusion, particularly as funding streams get changed and developed. It would be good to have someone like you still specializing in that so that the output that we get out of our Broadband and Cable Committee, we find out –and a lot of it is going to be digital equity related to funding–that we can pass the football or share the football. We don’t have that expertise so much as you would.
Jose Vasquez: And in my mind, I am separating those two. My personal perspective is, imagine if I wasn’t here. Do we need that Digital Equity Committee.
Amy Hirotaka: I think that you two are saying the same thing. I think Dan’s point about there not being enough man- and woman-power is correct. And I think that that points to the fact that it might not be practical right now to have a separate standing committee. Because Jose is also vice chair of CTAB, which he hasn’t said yet is that it’s a lot to be vice chair. It’s a big time commitment. And him also chairing a committee is likely not going to be beneficial for anybody. So that’s something to keep in mind as well.
Heather Griswold: It does make sense for Digital Equity to become one of the main goals in the banner, and something that’s put out to all of the committees. And then, you can be the champion of that as part of your role as the vice chair. Retire this group. Create a new group to do some of the more tactical focused items.
Dashiell Milliman Jarvis: Basically, Jose is really busy with everything else. It would be nice if he could hand over the reins of the TMF stuff, and this other project developing more connections with the nonprofits and other groups that help with the digital equity pols–people like Interconnection, Solid Ground, and any of the other groups that actually receive Technology Matching Fund grants. We’d get more community involvement, which might actually solve the people power problem. They might start volunteering with CTAB in an ideal world.
Nourisha Wells: I am more than happy to take over the actual tasks that fall under the current Digital Inclusion Committee, like the Tech Matching Fund. I’m happy to do that. I don’t think that we need to continue to have a Digital Inclusion Committee if we’re going to make Digital Equity the focus for all of our committees, so that all of the committees work towards advancing this goal. Even with connectivity, us coming up with a list of resources or hub or web site or whatever it is, that’s a smaller project. It happens and it’s done. Maybe the next thing could be a special committee to work on a project for two months or whatever. And then it’s done.
Joneil Sampana: In regards to the Digital Equity Initiative, I think that responsibility goes to not just folks around this table, but everyone in this room. I guess advocates for the City of Seattle and everyone here should know what an [unintelliglble] document is and advocate for your neighbors. We argue for something different here, but it’s not all our responsibility. So I think that’s what brings us together. So in our messaging, let’s be clear in all of our minutes and agendas, how we position all of our objectives. It’s staged in context to the Digital Equity Initiative.

David Keyes: What I also envision–this is what Austin, for example, has been doing–is regular sessions with the advisory board to do updates to community updates on the status of implementation on their digital inclusion plan. That’s another opportunity for this group.
Amy Hirotaka: I notice that we have a couple of hands up. I know that we’re running low on time. So, David, I wo0uld like to know if we need to make a motion on all of this?
Dan Moulton: I immediately agree with what you’ve said, but just to make sure, that it doesn’t get eliminated, that it doesn’t get lost. If we have a single point of contact or a clearing house so that everybody forming different committees would say what they have done on digital inclusion.It doesn’t even have to be a stand up majority. It would just be reported.
Nourisha Wells: When we set the priorities, those priorities are advancing digital equity. So that we don’t have any action items that aren’t going to touch on those themes. So that when you’re reporting on your work, hopefully, you’ve done something to advance that.
Amy Hirotaka: It’s like what Janice said about RSJI. Every department in the City looks at things through an RSJI lens. We should be looking at everything through a digital equity lens. And then, we do, of course, have this digital equity banner and the goals that are outlined in the document.
Dan Stiefel: I think we do need a person. We may not need a committee, but we need somebody. Because part of it is we have to communicate to do it. We have to communicate to different groups. We have to communicate with so many different people. It would be really nice to have one person who knows all the digital equity people in the government. I think CTAB should have that person. I think that’s what he was saying. That’s what I was trying to say, but not doing a very good job of it. Whether we need a committee, I think we need a board member who’s fully up to speed on all of the people involved and who can run with the ball as the other two committees need it.
Jose Vasquez: And I would be willing to take on that role. Maybe call it digital equity liaison.
David Keyes: That’s actually helpful for us in some ways, too. As staff, just as we’re working with the Mayor’s office and Council, and working on the staff and implementation plan to run through in terms of project management and whatever elements come through committees versus other staff implementation.
Dan Stiefel: The digital equity czar!
Amy Hirotaka: As a point of clarification, if we change the committee structure, do we need a motion from CTAB, or can we say that we’re exploring this, and potentially when we get our new members here?
David Keyes: It’s functionally what you need to do. And we just have things tied. Meeting times, listservs, what’s on the web site. It’s up to you guys to determine what you want to do.
Amy Hirotaka: One thing that we haven’t talked about yet is that Beryl is no longer on the board and she was the Privacy Committee chair. Is there a co-chair that she had that’s here that I don’t know about?
Nourisha Wells: I helped with co-chairing, but there wasn’t anything that carries over. That was one of the things that she said, that the privacy forums that she was planning is something that’s happening in the community. It’s not something that was something still attached to CTAB. She was reporting on it because she was working with them on it. So if we decide that we don’t want to put resources towards that, it will still happen without us.
David Keyes: And I would guess from what’s going on in terms of programs, policies, and planning, we know we have this chief privacy officer that the City is working on hiring right now. And we have the Privacy Toolkit that was developed this past year that we’re just starting to work on implementing, as Ryan mentioned, there may be identification of some specific needs the City has, and opportunity. You guys, as you’ve done even with the privacy officer, bring that to us or to somebody on the board. That’s something we could come back to.
Nourisha Wells: We only added it because we were asked to do it. It’s not something that has to stay.
Christopher Sheats: As I understand, the board members are not the only people that can run committees. So I would also volunteer to run the Privacy Committee.
Amy Hirotaka: Does one of the chairs need to be a CTAB member?
David Keyes: That’s what we said in the past. It’s something that can be changed.
Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, Christopher. We will note that. I think that our action items them are that Jose and I are tasked with outlining potentially what this new structure looks like, not necessarily finalized yet, because we do have these new board members coming in. We need to make a list of what Jose would be the liaison for, and then we will share them with the board. And then, if there needs to be something voted on , we can do it at the next meeting. Is that okay with everybody on CTAB?
Nourisha Wells: I have to say, Jose, don’t put too much on your list.
Amy Hirotaka: Do we have any other action items?
Nourisha Wells: Do we know when we’re going to get updates on TMF?
David Keyes: We’re working on it right now. I can certainly have it by the next meeting. What we’re working out right now is taking the first step. So, on the digital equity strategies, as we work with you guys and with the community groups and so on, we put an initial rough implementation order to things. 2016, 2017. Now we’re going back in more detail and saying, with a limited number of staff, how do we transition our current work and how do we pull that in to make sure that we can administer and manage those. We know we have a little bit of money that has come from the Comcast franchise agreement for the Digital Equity Initiative. We”ll have some money to use towards it. The main thing right now is trying to figure out how we manage that.
Nourisha Wells: So, it’s just going to be pushed back.
David Keyes: Yes. At minimal, here are the goals for the Digital Equity Initiative and when we put out for the Tech Matching Funds, have groups address in their applications how they are addressing those goals, so we can map them together. We’re doing the hard work right now and just trying to figure out how to align our internal resources, but we obviously want to get that rolling.
Jose Vasquez: So, to wrap up the action items, by the next meeting, we’ll develop a committee support outline. And Christopher Sheats in interested in the Privacy Committee chair.
Amy Hirotaka: And next month, I believe, we’ll also potentially have Candace Faber and Jim Loter.
David Keyes: Yes. John Giamberso asked about doing a Seattle Channel diversity update at the next meeting.
Janice Tufte: I just want to add something on the Digital Equity Initiative: the Device and Technical Support, the developed technology support program for its communication marketing strategy is really important. And I know we discussed it, but when different groups discussed it with the Comcast renewal, is that a lot of customers that are low income aren’t aware fully of the packages that are available. So if they get a $29.95 package, they are told they can add things, and before you know it, their bills are outrageous. So not only do we have this package available, but it has to be pretty clear. It’s called up-selling. Whenever anything is added, make it very clear that people are aware that whenever you add anything on there, this is going to increase your bill quite a bit, and you have to be aware of how long you’re required to do that. We have many, many people in low income housing that are in collections because of this. They don’t realize it, and they’re home alone, and they’re used to living with a lot of people, all of a sudden, they’re alone and their TV is their main source. So this has to be built in, the awareness of the dangers. How to be careful of what you’re purchasing and that you’re able to afford it within your budget. It needs to be very clear, not just how they market it currently.
Amy Hirotaka: That’s actually another way that Digital Equity and the Broadband and Cable Committees certainly overlap.
David Keyes: One last thing, there was also a request from Bruce Blood, the open data manager. He’ll have some stuff at our next meeting also.

Seattle Channel Diversity Statistics 2015

To: Citizens Technology Advisory Board

From: John Giamberso, General Manager, Seattle Channel

Date: 3/8/16

Topic: Seattle Channel Diversity Statistics for 2015



One of the Seattle Channel’s objectives in the DOIT Race and Social Justice Work plan is: “Seattle Channel will consider race, representation and under-served communities in all their programming. Topics target many affected communities of color and immigrant and refugee communities. Diverse representation is integral to the on-air talent.” The channel’s method to achieve the above objective is described below. The statistics are for the period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015.


Diversity Statistics Tracking Methodology:

While the Seattle Channel’s mission statement is “To inform and engage citizens in the governmental, civic and cultural affairs of Seattle through compelling use of television, Internet and other media”, the channel is also charged with reflecting the diversity of the city’s residents.

The Seattle Channel tracks all productions for racial and ethnic diversity in two ways. First we look at whether a program has people of color on camera (panel members, interview subjects, etc.) and secondly as to whether a program’s content focuses on issues reflecting the needs and concerns of different ethnic and religious groups, immigrants, refugees, those who are differently abled, the LGBT community, and other minority groups. Any program that meets either of these criteria is noted as such. The total of these programs is divided by the total number of programs of a particular series, giving a resultant percentage.


Per Show Breakdown: Percentage content relevant to people of color & people of color on camera:

Total Shows: Total number of shows in the first and second quarter of 2015

Content: Number of shows that deal with content that reflects the needs and concerns of underserved communities

On-Camera: Number of shows that have people of color on camera

2014   Long Form Art Zone w/Nancy Guppy Book Lust CIO CityStream Community Stories Seattle Voices Civic Cocktail Seattle Speaks
  Total Shows/Segments 112 31 12 28 86 4 24 8 2
Content 73 13 2 19 41 3 13 8 2
65% 42% 17% 68% 48% 75% 54% 100% 100%
On Camera 70 17 2 17 50 4 14 7 2
63% 55% 17% 61% 58% 100% 58% 88% 100%
2015   Long Form Art Zone w/Nancy Guppy Book Lust CIO CityStream Community Stories Seattle Voices Civic Cocktail Seattle Speaks
  Total Shows\Segments 92 25 12 29 86 6 9 8 2
Content 65 13 2 28 34 6 6 6 1
71% 52% 17% 97% 40% 100% 67% 75% 50%
On Camera 69 20 0 23 45 5 5 3 2
75% 80% 0% 79% 52% 83% 56% 38% 100%

*Host is a person of color – not included in the percentage for Seattle Voices

** Long Form means the gavel to gavel coverage of speakers and events in the Seattle Channel series titled as “American Podium” and “Town Square”.

*** Each show contains 3 feature segments

These numbers compare favorably with the overall diversity of the city as reported by the Seattle 2010 Census estimates:

Seattle 2010 Census Estimates: Population Count: 608,660; Persons of color: 33.7%


  • White – 66.3%
  • Asian – 13.8%
  • Black or African American – 7.9%
  • Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (of any race): 6.6%
  • Amer. Indian & Alaska Native – 0.8%
  • Native Hawaiian & Other Pac. Islander – 0.4%
  • Other race – 2.4%
  • Two or more races – 5.1%


The latest City of Seattle Information Technology Residential Survey shows the channel is reaching a weekly viewership that also matches the diversity of the city. The survey results found that of the channel’s 36,000 weekly viewers “Caucasians and Asian Pacific Islanders both account for approximately 1/3 of our weekly audience, mixed race residents are almost 1/4 and African Americans and Latinos are about 6%of our weekly audience. People of color represent about 2/3 of our weekly audience.”

Programming Highlights

The Seattle Channel uses diversity and elements of the city’s Race and Social Justice Toolkit in all programming decisions. Consciousness of panel or speaker’s race and ethnicity and how the subject matter relates to issues of concern to communities of color and underserved communities, is part of the fabric of our decision making process.

The channel also regularly highlights Asian-American history month, Black History Month and Latino Heritage month with special blocks of programming, on screen graphics and social media.

The city also funds a public access channel – Seattle Community Media, Ch. 77 – that provides free television production resources, training in television production skills and a cable channel. This resource is available to all residents of the city.



EGov Committee Minutes for Jan. 26, 2015

E-Government Committee Meeting
January 26, 2016
7:00 pm – 8:00 pm
320 Westlake Ave. Seattle



  • Joneil Sampana, CTAB – E-Gov Committee Co-Chair
  • Heather Lewis, CTAB – E-Gov Committee Co-Chair
  • Greta H. – E-Gov Committee Secretary
  • Shelly Farnham, Third Place Technology
  • Sara Abramowitz – Ross Strategic
  • Sinae Cheh – Morning Star Korean Cultural Center
  • Jen Davison – Urban@UW
  • Charlotte Lunday – UW Law

Discussion Topics:

  • New Civic Tools –
    1. CTAB Twitter Account – @SeaTechBoard
    2. Social Listening Tools like Microsoft Social Engagement
    3. EdMurraySocial


  • Old Business Projects
    1. Pay-By-Phone data review
      1. Revisit with Usman re:more information about the context of the data is needed for citizen and developer use.
    2. City of Seattle – White House Smart City Initiative with Urban@UW
      1. Jen Davison and Joneil introduce “MetroLab” project to start in March/April
      2. Sensors being provided by Array of Things
  • Scope of project will include “consider what we can do with the data collected to improve citizen’s quality of life. Current decision to be confirmed is the selection of rainwater sensors.
  1. No formal community engagement plan (consider how to involve underserve communities without tech and improve their lives)
  2. Possible Microsoft partnership discussion held with MSFT Civics team.
  3. Keen to make sure citizen-perspective (qualitative and contextual) is included alongside quantitative data sets;
    1. ex) I Quant NY


  • New Business
    1. Review 2016 Work Plan (full deck to be attached separately)

2016 Priority Areas



Action Items and Decisions/Agreements:

  • Provide MetroLab Kick-off meeting logistics to Joneil- Jen
  • Request access to eGov distribution list for Committee leadership – Joneil
  • Joneil to provide Metro-Lab discussion notes to Jen prior to Metro-Lab working session – Joneil
  • Share 2016 Work Plan with Councilmember Harrell and Gonzalez – Joneil



2016 Work Plan (Draft): Identify digital tools to encourage citizen engagement; Recommend solutions to improve intra-department efficiencies for improved civic engagement; Promote collaborative partnerships across the tech and education sector for citizen and youth engagement.


Our work will align with City of Seattle’s Digital Equity goals, more specifically –

  • Goal 2 – Skills Training: Create and deliver educational opportunities for all residents to gain the technology skills necessary to be successful in employment, entrepreneurship and technology leadership, in lifelong learning, in civic engagement, and in the use of essential online services.
  • Goal 5 – Build community capacity: Build the capacity and sustainability of digital equity program providers to deliver quality services, to implement best practices and to adapt to emerging technologies.
  • Goal 6 – Inclusive engagement and empowerment: Develop digital tools and the use of tools to maximize diverse, inclusive civic engagement, sense of community, and participation in decision making.

For complete the report, please see – Digital Equity Initiative Action Plan