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 CommunityTechnology@seattle.gov



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: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CTTAB/podcast/cttab.xml

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 http://data.seattle.gov. 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 http://data.seattle.gov, 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 http://data.seattle.gov/broadband.

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@seattle.gov.


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 http://seattle.gov/opendata, 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 data.seattle.gov 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 data.seattle.gov?

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, http://seattlechannel.org 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. http://interconnection.org/

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 bruce.blood@seattle.gov. 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 john.giamberso@seattle.gov. 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 CommunityTechnology@seattle.gov

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. http://data.seattle.gov 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, http://openbudget.seattle.gov. 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 seattle.gov 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: http://performance.seattle.gov
Henok Kidane: Last meeting, we had someone come by and talk about the redesign of seattle.gov. Am I correct in assuming that if I have a disability, I will be able to use it?
Ryan Biava: The seattle.gov 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 seattle.gov, 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 Letsencrypt.org 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 Seattle.gov 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


January 12th, 2016, Seattle Technology Advisory Board Minutes

January 12, 2016 Meeting – Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board

Topics covered included: Report by Chief Technology Officer Michael Mattmiller on Smart Cities project; report by Jeff Beckstrom on seattle.gov redesign; Digital Equity update with strategies overview by David Keyes; Comcast franchise agreement update and overview by Tony Perez; updates from Broadband and Cable, Privacy, Digital Inclusion and E-gov committees; 2015 Planning: work plans, annual meetings with Mayor and Council.  Presentation materials

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

Podcasts available at: http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/CTTAB/podcast/cttab.xml


Board Members:  Joneil Sampana, Karia Wong, Amy Hirotaka, Jose Vasquez

Public: John Tigue, Lloyd Douglas, Doreen Cornwell, Henok Kidane, Tim Clemans, Heather Lewis, Dan Stiefel, Jeff McCord, Allan Yeung, Kate Schneier, Ronald Ning, Erik Jansen

Staff:  Michael Mattmiller, John Giamberso, David Keyes, Tony Perez, Derrick Hall, Jeff Beckstrom

22 In Attendance

Meeting was called to order by Amy Hirotaka.


Amy Hirotaka: Welcome, everyone. I guess that we do have quorum because we have a third of current CTAB members here. So we can vote to approve the minutes. I have one amendment to the current minutes, which is that it refers to my co-chair as Ben Krokower, but my co-chair on the Broadband Committee was Dan Stiefel, so I’d like to have that changed. With that change, I move to approve the November 2015 minutes as amended.


[Minutes from the last CTAB meeting (November) with correction made was posted after this vote.]

Amy Hirotaka: I’ll turn it over to Michael Mattmiller for the CTO Report.


Michael Mattmiller: Happy New Year. It’s going to be an exciting 2016 for DoIT technology in the City. We are just three short months out from creating the new Seattle Information Technology Department. I’m still trying to figure out if it’s the largest transformation of every organization in the City over the past 20 years or not. Six hundred and fifty staff from across the City will be coming into the new Seattle IT. I’m very thankful to our staff for leading transition teams and really making it true that we’re building the foundation for our new department. We are still having monthly meetings with staff from across IT functions in the City to make sure that we’re communicating what’s going on. And I’m very excited to share a couple of staff changes. We’ve just selected Charlene Moran from DPD as our senior manager from program management, her new department. Jim Loter has been named the new director of Digital Engagement. So I will be working closely with Jim. We are thrilled to have him come in from the Library and serve in this role. For those who didn’t hear, Kendee Yamaguchi left in November. She couldn’t quite share where she was going. She is now happy to share that she’s the new Director of Economic Development for Snohomish County, under the County Executive out there, so I’m very happy that she’s had that opportunity.

I look forward next time that I’m here and able to share the new Director of Applications for the City. We are very close to being able to announce that. And we also are reviewing resumes now for the Chief Privacy Officer position.

There are a number of updates on the agenda from the website for Digital Equity that I think most people will be very interested in. We’re also getting very close to finishing the Digital Broadband Map, so by the end of this month, we’ll be able to share that.

Thanks to everyone who was at Hack Night last week.

I got to do something pretty exciting last week. Based on the work we’ve been doing in Seattle on Open Data and Smart Cities projects, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy invited us to be part of their presentation at CES (Consumer Electronics Show). US CTO (Chief Technology Officer) Megan Smith and Tom Kalil, Deputy Director for Technology and Innovation, did an hour-long super session called An Inside Look: Industry Innovators and Government Join Forces. They highlighted the key technology priorities for the Obama administration–diversity in tech, tour of duty hiring, and Smart Cities. I had an opportunity to give a four-minute talk on some of our projects.

Smart Cities is not just about putting sensors into the environment, it’s about how are we becoming more data driven today, how are we making data available to our civic technology community and others. I highlighted three examples of how we’re becoming more data driven as part of that conversation. I talked about the Seattle 23 District and how we partner with companies to understand how they’re using energy, give them actionable feedback, and as a result, reduced energy usage by 20 percent at a time when we pledge to become energy neutral by 2050. I talked about an example of how we’re partnering with the University of Washington Rainwatch Program. So for those who aren’t familiar, rain causes flooding, causes public safety hazards, so with UW and the National Weather Service, we were able to determine that rain falls differently in different parts of the City. And now we can get a hyper local weather prediction one hour before a rain event is likely to occur and we can take steps to prevent flooding and other hazards.

I also talked about our Hack the Commute last year as an example of why open data is so important to us, and that when we invest in taking the time to go into a community and saying, “What data do you need to solve a problem. And then we work with others to make that data available. We get some really cool things that happen as a result, and so we got 14 prototypes out of Hack the Commute for new technology solutions to solve our transportation issues. So it was a great opportunity. I’m very thankful that the White House chose to feature Seattle in that regard. And that’s a nice segue to say that right now, Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole is sitting in Michelle Obama’s suite at her box at the State of the Union, and has been asked to sit there in part, because of the great work she’s been doing to build community based policing and take steps to build trust in the police department. But also because of the City’s commitment to take part in the White House’s Police Data Initiative. As you know, we are one of the first cities to make available real time 911 data at data.seattle.gov, and we are committing to looking at other types of data we can make publicly available.

When I think about the role of CTAB, I think about the tremendous position of strength we’re coming from when it comes to technology. We have a great base of support in CTAB and the University of Washington and some of our community partners. And nowhere is that more evident than when you have something like the USDOT Smart Cities grant challenge that comes up, and all of a sudden we have dozens of companies and organizations trying to cling onto that effort, because there’s a recognition that we can do big, cool things in Seattle around tech. I’m really looking forward to CTAB and the role it can play, and your collective vision for how to be a smarter City. What does that mean? When we think about the role that ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) plays in changing the way the City delivers business how we can scale, how we can better serve the public. And some of that is traditional in e-gov, and thinking about what that interface looks like to the public. CTAB looks at the bigger picture: What are the newest technologies that will not only help us better serve the public, but operate in a new manner as the City that we are. Really reaping the same types of benefits operationally that the public sector–that the private sector has realized for some time–and I’ll show one take-away I had from CES in that regard. Had a chance to pre-order Oculus Rift, a new $600 virtual reality headsets. Pretty cool. I did not wait in line to try it. It’s really cool. You could play with the new DVA, right next to it, and we took a few minutes to play with it. But if you got past VR and all the goodness that is going to come from that style of gaming in an immersive experience, there’s augmented reality. So, we looked at what other companies are doing. And if you think about it, you can wear a headset while you’re doing your work, and it’s not obstructing your field of vision, but at the same time, you’re getting additional information. So if you think about our City staff, we have line workers and field workers who are out every day, having to deal with the complex systems and thinking about — either it’s maintenance or repairs or other types of activity. Today, many of those workers have to first go to their work order management system and get a print out of their tasks for the day, they look at what’s going on. Then they go to their enterprise content management system and they have to go through schematics or other types of things to help them do that work. Then they go out in the field and put on heavy equipment, gloves, and those types of things and try to balance paper, balance manual activity to keep track of what they’re doing. If they had their augmented reality glasses on, and their work instructions were right there as they’re doing their work, it provides a checklist for them as they work. Let’s say that a complex system can overlay the schematic so that you can more accurately do your job. Let’s say something’s not going right. Someone at the support center is actually sharing your field of vision and can actually annotate in your field of view what you’re missing or what needs to change. That’s something that perhaps we’re not thinking about. That’s another situation where we can add value with technology. We can be innovative and think ahead. Think about how to enable service to the public in a way we don’t expect. So lots of opportunity. I can’t wait to be working on that. And that’s what’s going on from my perspective.

Joneil Sampana: Was the CES presentation recorded?

Michael Mattmiller: It was. If you go to CESweb.org and then click on videos, it is the Megan Smith presentation about government and innovation partnership. Seattle starts at 45. There is also the one where the administration is talking about priorities at whitehouse.gov/ces2016.

[See White House blog post and video of the panel including Michael Mattmiller’s talk on Seattle sensor project.]


Amy Hirotaka: We have time to open it up for questions.

Question: Can you tell us about the position we took?

Michael Mattmiller: Sure. Many of you know Candace Faber. She started with the City in December. When you think about DoIT today and all the work going on in the City, we invest a lot in our open data program. We invest a lot in engaging the community from a smart perspective to make sure that when we produce data, that when we are looking for civic technology innovation that we’re making the connections to empower people to use what we provide. The gap we had is that Bruce and his team are very busy just mechanically trying to get data out there. And when we want to do something like a Hack-a-thon, it’s hard trying to get resources cobbled together within a period of time. We would like to get more systemic about that engagement. We had an opportunity to make that her full time role. Candace has been going out and talking to our City departments about where they see the opportunity in open data, and the type of work that we see as happening in the community that we want to be better funded to. Within a week, she nailed down  specifically what the vision was for her position and the work plan for next year. It’s going to include more touch points with the community. It’s going to include more regular events. And–knock wood–as part of the What Works Cities event, many of your know that we’ve been looking at having an open data policy that more formally gets departments to open up the data sets, and we’ll probably have something within the next month or so. Candace has been very involved with that.

I see John joining us. Thank you for all your work on the broadband Map.

Joneil Sampana: Going back to Candace’s job description, is there an aspect of that or any of the other job descriptions coming out that focuses on diversity, in regards to getting more diverse communities engaged in some of the work we’re doing?

Michael Mattmiller: At the moment, there is not a position focused on that. Here’s a couple of things that are spinning. We have Andre Nellams, our human resources manager, expanding that staff as we consolidate. He is our RSJI for our department, making sure that gets managed. Andre and I have been brainstorming about how we can more formally think about diversity in our department. One of the things that has been very impactful for me something I know it’s more common in the corporate space, but for folks who aren’t familiar, creating business oriented groups of people who might identify or want to support a certain diverse element of the staff. For example, when I was approached by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, I helped create here in Seattle our LGBT employer resource group. And it’s not just for folks who identify as LGBT, but for those who support that community or those who want to network or help advance the business by engaging with the broader community. We don’t have a lot of resource within the department to establish at that level of granularity, but can we even think about having some type of diversity ERG for people who are passionate about supporting and increasing the number of diverse employees, and giving them a charge of something like liaising with diversity in tech groups. And we’re fortunate in the City to have some great groups, and I wish we could better manage those relationships. We’re spinning out a few ideas like that. I’m very thankful to outgoing Councilmember Jean Godden. She did give us $90,000 in our budget for interns from code academies. We look forward to leveraging that resource this year. We would be thankful for any ideas.

Jose Vasquez: I had a meeting with the national board Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers. They’re having their annual convention here in Seattle this year. We’re going to talk about how we can collaborate.

Michael Mattmiller: Just keep me posted. I’m not familiar with that group.

Question: Are you looking at how you can enable outside developers to build stuff for City servers?

Michael Mattmiller: Yes. And one of the things that we are looking to take on is thinking about what is our best way to enable civic intervention and what is its role in government. There are some things specific to Seattle, and progress which broke the decision of DPD to build something internally. Every decision is going to be a little bit different, but the short answer is ‘yes.’ Definitely for that innovation pipeline and figuring out how we can leverage it through the community.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, Michael. A few more people have joined since we started, so please introduce yourselves.

Introductions for New Arrivals

Amy Hirotaka: We will move on to Jeff Beckstrom, who will tell us about the seattle.gov redesign.


Jeff Beckstrom: This is the first public demo of the new seattle.gov homepage and portal areas. Along with that, we’re also going to be launching a new Mayor’s site, Council web site, and new City Attorney web site. We’re looking at February 11 as the launch date, so it’s right around the corner. Our team has been extremely busy getting all the features ready to go. I wanted to preview the site with you today.

With that, I will start the demo.

David Keyes: Jeff manages a team. There are some individuals that do the content for different departments, but our team has done a lot of work over the past two or three years on implementing the Ingeniux content management system.

Jeff Beckstrom: It’s pretty much our enterprise content system for the City of Seattle. Our team has really been focused on migrating existing department web sites to the content management system. In the past, it’s pretty much been flat file, developed in Wordpad or Dreamweaver and FTP-ed across. This is not exactly a very modern process for web. And the web teams were typically bottlenecking the process, and content wasn’t separated out from design. So that’s been a very large project for our team, trying to get everything migrated over. We’re about 85 percent complete at this point with the big department migrations, with a few of our bigger departments still hanging out there. The goal is to bring the new design to those departments, including SDOT and Seattle Parks. Both are web sites which are very seriously in need of an overhaul.

So, with that out of the way, this is basically where we’re headed with the new seattle.gov redesign. One of the thing we wanted to accomplish was one city/one web site. That’s been our slogan from the onset of this. We’re really trying to get a more cohesive branding, so citizens and constituents can know that they are on the seattle.gov web site, and presents a more professional, approachable face to the City of Seattle.

One of the things we decided to do was to go to a more tile-based approach. Part of the reason we did that was that tiles lend themselves extremely well for mobile and responsive design. Everything that you see that’s been developed so far is mobile friendly. We’re taking a look at mobile push design for many of our portal areas. We’ve seen huge rise in mobile traffic over the years. We tend to see 28 to 30 percent on seattle.gov. Parks gets up to 42-45 in the summertime. Because you’ve gotta find that soccer park. I’m guilty.

So, all of our web sites inside the content management will be responsive design. They support four break points, including enhanced desktop version, which is the one you’re seeing now. The normal desktop version at 960, a tablet based design, and a mobile based design. That’s pretty much right out of the box with the content management system. It’s a product called Ingeniux, for the content management system. But we’re using Bootstrap for java scripting responsive design. One of the things we were asked to do in the new redesign was showcase the beauty of Seattle. I always joke that it’s extremely hard to take a bad photo in Seattle, because we live in such a beautiful place. There are so many great photographs out there that we’re leveraging our seattle.gov Flicker group, and have been for a number of years, to really promote the beauty of Seattle throughout our portal pages. You’ll see that scattered throughout our main portal areas. One of the things that we have done is to standardize some of look and feel of our tiles. We have a number of different types of tiles that can be used by departments, created by departments to promote programs and services.  Also news, social media, and larger features. We’ve basically been stuck with an antiquated model, which was similar to the Yahoo! style resource list. That model is tired. So we really tore this to the ground and rebuilt it from the ground up. We decided to develop a set of common topics, because a lot of our constituents don’t know what department to go to for the information they want. We divided them up by a common set of, I believe, 23 or 24 topics that act as a clearing house for information, regardless of what department owns that service. A visitor can go to Animals and Pets and find ways to license their pet, or make a complaint about an animal that’s being a nuisance or off-leash. Really, this is one of the first times that the City of Seattle, to my knowledge, that departments have done a complete audit of the services that we provide to our constituency. While it’s not 100 percent complete, it’s definitely a starting point, and we will continue to organically grow those over time, as we move to this new model.

One of the big goals was ease of use for constituents to find information without having to know that you have to go to the City Auditor for this particular service. Again, tile based design makes it easy.

We also have these three sections, which are allowing the user to identify themselves. It’s a model that I believe we introduced years ago, and predates my time with the web team. Here, you will see the same kind of treatment, but the information tiles focus on things that are pertinent to a visiting audience. Some of the things we are doing with the visiting piece is partnering with seattle.org, which is the default tourism and visiting area for business for Seattle. In order to provide that content, our existing visiting portal is similarly out of date, and quite honestly, needs a lot of love, so we  figured we might as well leverage some of the partnerships out in the community that exist and specialize in that in order to get people to where they want to go.

Amy Hirotaka: I think we have a few minutes of wiggle room. I wonder if we should leave at least a minute for folks to ask questions.

Jeff Beckstrom: On the service and information piece, again the tile face design up front. One of the things you’ll see here is all of the services listed in tile format. But then you can filter these services by sub-topics. So if you’re looking for licensing and registration, use the services filter. You can also do keyword, which I don’t have on this particular version. But as you start typing, it does a pretty good search on all of those services.

We also have the ability to feature programs on these pages. This is going to be a clearinghouse for information from the City about that one topic. A lot of the departments can tag that within content management and have that promoted up to our central portal area pretty easily at this point.

Question: Now that you’ve switched to a CRM system, can you easily translate?

Jeff Beckstrom:  That’s one thing we are looking at as a group at this point. Google Translate is an option at this point, but as you know, Google Translate is pretty poor. One of the things that the City of Boston is currently doing is they have a section that’s asking the public what are the important sections of the web site to translate, which I think is a brilliant idea. You don’t need the whole web site if you need information translated. We already see high numbers on Google Translate of people going there on their own initiative. Rather than being responsible for mis-translated information, critical information, that may be a better approach. Building out smaller sections and translating in multiple languages.

I think a lot of portal areas work pretty well, but then when you start getting into more of the content heavy areas, that’s where it starts to break down.

Dorene Cornwell: If you can see who goes to Google Translate, then those would be ones that I would prioritize.

Jeff Beckstrom: Definitely, that’s a good idea. A lot of the translation pieces are visiting traffic.

Let’s go quickly to the Mayor’s site. One of the things that we try to do is to echo this same tile treatment throughout the departments’ sites, really keeping a consistent look and feel, consistent navigation across the top. We’re also going to be rolling out a context aware mobile menu throughout all of our CMS managed sites. It basically knows what page you’re on and can navigate you forward and back throughout our entire structure, which is a much need improvement. Also featuring current issues, initiatives, recent news. We’re hoping to carry the tile based piece at least to the home pages of the departments. And then, as you start getting more and more into the content and start finding your way, then the tiles kind of start dissipating. Still responsive, but just not a responsive.

Amy Hirotaka: I think we have about one minute, so does anyone have any questions?

Joneil Sampana: I heard you say CMS. I didn’t hear you say CRM.

Jeff Beckstrom:  Yes. Content Management System (CMS). CRM is — we currently use Motorola as our CRM and it will tie into it through the customer service bureau, but there are a lot of ways to directly tie into that system.

Joneil Sampana: The reason why I ask is I think it’s important that you’ve done a great job in consolidating the system services. I noticed that a couple of times it says, ‘Paid For, Subscribe to This.’ I wonder if there’s one way to sign on. My pet, and dealing with my electric bill, to just sign on once.

Jeff Beckstrom: That would be fantastic. Unfortunately, at least our existing CRM system doesn’t have that capability. i think that we are looking at that.

Henok Kidane: I wonder about people with slow connections. Have you considered maybe a lower speed for those who don’t have connections that can utilize this?

Jeff Beckstrom: We are employing Lazy Load for a lot of the mobile pieces, but not necessarily for our desktop version. Most of that is because we didn’t want to fill up everybody’s data plans with high imagery. I really haven’t given a lot of thought to do a slower bit-rate connection version of the site. That’s actually a really good idea.

Dorene Cornwell: Following up on the mobile question, sometimes I know that for some people with assistive technology, just having a mobile site can solve lots of problems. So having a link where you can find that is part of useful accessibility.

Jeff Beckstrom: Definitely. We have been doing pretty extensive accessibility testing. That’s one of the things right out of the box that we’re enforcing from any other redesigns. It will be 2.0 compliant. We have been paying attention to that, which hasn’t been easy.

Dorene Cornwell: Someone sent me an email the other day about a different government site, and I just said, ‘Send it to tech support.’

Karia Wong: I use the web site very often to show my clients where the Chinese information that they look for at the City site. I’m wondering, for the new site, is it going to be in the same place? Before, when I clicked the Chinese button, most important information that has been translated into Chinese is available. For the new site, what’s going to happen?

Jeff Beckstrom: We recognize that. It’s really difficult to maintain that, as you might imagine. I think we have 32 different languages and portal pages of information. We recognize that we need to do something about that to manage that content better. We will have something in place, but we’re going to have to do some longer term thinking about what it is that we’re offering our communities, and really get to the meat of the matter, typically around messaging for critical information. And not rely on Google Translate to do that for us.

Karia Wong: Before this, there was important information about tenant rights and other items that I share with my clients.

Jeff Beckstrom: That’s good feedback. What we’ll probably end up doing is putting it up as is, and then in the future working to manage that information better. It’s always been a challenge, but now that we’re in a content management system, it helps, definitely. In the past, my team would go and compare documents with English meta tags, and comments in the code, and that’s just not a good way.

Question: So if you search for Chinese, will tagging help find that content.

Jeff Beckstrom: Yes, I would imagine so, through Google search.

Amy Hirotaka: We’re out of time. We’ve run way over. If folks want to get in contact with you, can they? Or should they make comments to me and then I can give them to you?

Jeff Beckstrom: I can provide my email. That would be fine. Thank you guys for the time.

Amy Hirotaka: Now we’ll turn it over to David Keyes.


David Keyes: We’re about to head into the third phase of the Digital Equity Iniative. Thanks to a number of you who participated in it. The first phase was establishing visions and goals. The second phase was starting to work on specific strategies. So, I’ll just run through a couple of moments about it.

This was the initial vision that was set. We envisioned a City where technologies opportunities would empower all residents and communities, especially those that were under-served or under-represented, and then develop some guiding principles. One was ‘Be a Leader.’ There were some very interesting discussions around, “Are we the leaders? Are we stewards? What is the City’s role in that? What are other peoples roles, like libraries or tech companies or others, to be sure we’re coordinating and then ensuring equitable development. As the Comprehensive Plan comes out, you will also see a lot of discussion about equitable development. How do we apply race and social justice principles to all the aspects that the City is engaged in. And to think about that in terms of broadband deployment and broadband adoption.

We established six goals. With the top three, Devices and Technical Support; Connectivity; and Skills Training being the priority goals. And the others ones also being important, but both for a combination of time and attention and also as we started to talk to them, as we implement, how do we get more folks to have devices at home and low cost and free devices. When they get technical support, how do they get broadband to their home, and mobile broadband, and make that affordable. How do we ensure digital literacy? These three –Outreach and Accessibility, Building the Community Capacity, Inclusive Engagement and Empowerment — seem to be supporting goals that get woven in as we implement those top three. With folks like Candace and others working on civic technology, and CTAB and others working on that, and others. There may be other initiatives by the City that come back and support those elements and often tie back to Digital Equity work, as well. So it’s certainly not exclusive.

This is a little bit hard to read, but I’ll do a print out of it during the break and come back.

Basically, for each, we have a few different strategies that we set. This came out of work groups here, particularly now that there’s some discussion by the Broadband Committee and the Digital Inclusion Committee, and our Digital Equity Action Committee, which were 25 or so stakeholders from different tech companies, community nonprofits, education sector, faith groups and others, and the round tables that some of you participated in. On Devices and Technical Support, there were three primary ones. Increasing assistive tech at community sites, increasing support for device ownership, and developing tech support programs. We mapped out what are some specific things to do and starting to map out a time frame for that. for instance, by 2017, to develop plans for expanding assistive tech devices and software in public computer labs. That’s something that we might get done sooner, but at least sets a target. And I’ll talk more about that.

Increasing support: We talked about a pilot scholarship or voucher program. We also talked about increasing recycling of devices and coordinating with refurbishers. We had a quite a discussion with Interconnection about that, to distribute devices to low income residents.

Then on Tech Support programs, we talked about having a better marketing and communications strategy to increase promotion of those resources, and then expanding awareness of tech support options, both for the community members and also for computing labs and small businesses.

In Connectivity, three main goals: Improve high speed infrastructure, improve internet to individuals, and improve digital connectivity in public spaces. Along side that was, come up with some recommendations for best practices for competitive and sufficient broadband, particularly in multiple dwelling units. For instance, a discussion came up with some of the providers in Seattle Housing Authority. How can we encourage enough building in enough conduit and pipelines so that we can put multiple providers in public housing or other low income housing to enable that. Start to look at building codes and we can do to change those. Tony has already started working with the Department of Planning and Development to look at how we change the code to make that more accessible.

Improving internet for individuals is promoting the low income internet idea, developing and expanding the hotspot program that the library has.

Improving connectivity in public spaces: The City Council has just approved funding to work on a City-wde WiFi strategy–to look at that. To look at sustainability at community computer labs with high speed internet. One thing that came up was setting up multiple charging stations, having greater access to that, particularly for homeless folks to have a place to do that charging. Implementing building wide WiFi, where feasible at Parks and Rec community centers.

In Skills Training, three main things: Boost the digital kills training programs, prepare qualified trainers so that people at the centers, both staff and volunteers can assist others so we can build that pool of people helping other people. then providing additional resources or support for the community organizations that are working on that. In boosting digital skills training, we set as a goal to pick three schools that are Title I and are low income, and work with them to be able to ensure and expand the number of families that are connected as a starting point. Let’s increase STEM and coding instruction for students in school programs, and try and use that, as well as coding education programs for adults; increase awareness of digital skills training programs among vulnerable workers. There was some discussion about a person working at a hotel or elsewhere, how do we help them open up opportunities. Goodwill and community colleges were also interested in that. We talked about preparing quality trainers and applying a train the trainer program and putting that in place.

Additional resources is doing two exciting things. One is to do a joint, large marketing campaign to increase awareness of training and technical support opportunities for residents, and secondly, to look at how we can create a funding collaborative. In Kansas City, for instance, they’ve done that and created a pool, so that companies can contribute to a foundation that puts money out to support things that could feed back into something like the tools, the devices scholarships, and other things.

Next steps for us: Right now, we’ve got the full report we’re about to get published. We’re just starting to plan a launch event for February. We’d love to have you guys involved in that. Just talked to the Mayor’s office this week about what date that would be. We really want that to be a great and exciting opportunity. And then, to establish some ongoing leadership teams as CTAB does its work plans for the year, to keep that moving along. How do we community engaged as we’re doing it and get new folks in to do projects to implement the Digital Equity plan. And important thing is that it’s all of us together–City as leader, but it’s really all of us together. There’s no reason why the other aspects can’t be lead by other groups.

We’re looking at the strategies and developing a more detailed work plan. Evaluations are really important so we’re getting metrics along the way, so we can talk about success in moving the needle on Digital Equity; continuing to strengthen these partnerships and investment opportunities, so as we announce these strategies, the opportunity for you guys to help bring in others to work together on it. And then, establish a regular reporting on progress. So again, thinking about what you’re doing and how to look at, a couple of times a year, hosting forums so that we can share some of the great successes that are coming out, get more feedback, keep the energy going around it.

So that’s where we’re at on the Digital Equity plan. Thanks to folks here who worked on that.

Amy Hirotaka: Thanks, David.

Jose Vasquez: We did run out of time on that. Do we have time for questions?

Amy Hirotaka: Sure. Are there any questions?

Joneil Sampana: For the launch event, how can we help get other communities involved in that?

David Keyes: I think as soon as we get a date set, then both really talking it up, word of mouth, press releases and some marketing materials. We’re looking at how do we do it as a demonstration of what’s going on. We don’t have a place set yet, so I don’t want to confirm that, but one of the places that makes some sense to us is New Holly, where we could bring in some of the coding education, and robotics that’s happening with the East African community services. It also hits the place that is tied to Seattle Housing Authority. Another project that is related to this is a federal HUD Connect Home broadband project that we’re a part of, to increase access and skills for low income public housing residents. The director of that program for HUD is interested in coming out for the launch of that. I think if you’ve got ideas about also doing some demonstrations of things that show what can be done with Digital Equity, Karia, maybe you’ve got something to demonstrate in Chinese and how to help immigrants with digital literacy. Or Joneil, maybe some of your data mapping could be used as a display or demo. I’m kind of interested in ideas on how to showcase what moving the Digital Equity plan forward would mean.

Joneil Sampana: I think it would be exciting to have the participants, a very different demographic group represented.

David Keyes: Yes, I think it’s pretty important to have people from the community who would be impacted to talk about what that means. Whether its youth or family talking about it, and so on.

Amy Hirotaka: We’ll move on to Tony Perez. You have ten minutes.


Tony Perez: I’ll move quickly so we can have question. It seems as though this topic always generates questions.

I’m Tony Perez, the director of Seattle Office of Cable Communications and part of my job is to negotiate these franchises from time to time. The next time we will be doing this is later this year with Wave Broadband, and we can talk about that another time.

A brief summary or overview of the benefits we were able to achieve within the framework of a franchise. I’ll talk a little bit more at the end about some other considerations that we were able to negotiate outside the context of the franchise, such as internet benefits, which we can’t require internet–we have no regulatory authority over that. One thing I wanted to say, too, and you should be aware of this because it will come up to probably when we worked with Wave. Our leverage in negotiations was severely impacted by a 2007 order from the FCC called 621 Order. That manifested itself in a couple of ways. For example, the 621 order provides that effectively a company like Comcast can deduct from franchise fees it pays the City the cost of providing free cable service to all schools and City buildings, which we require them to do. Over the course of a ten year franchise, that would be millions and millions of dollars in either lost revenue to the City or we would have to start charging the school district and the City for the cable service they receive. That’s one of the limiting factors from that order. The other aspect of the order that was problematic for us was that it really frowned upon what are called level playing fields in existing franchises. So, in the Comcast franchise, we had a provision that if we granted a franchise let’s say to a Century Link, on terms that were more favorable or less onerous than the burdens Comcast has, Comcast would get to reduce its obligations. That’s the climate and environment we faced when we first started negotiating with Comcast, and everything from their lawyers was, “621 Order, 621 Order.” Century Link did the same thing. But, I think we were able to arrive at a good franchise, actually extremely good in the context of the negotiations that we had.

I want to move the the next line where we’re comparing what we got this time compared to 2006. Back then, we got up front cash money from Comcast. It was approximately $7 million, with $4 million to support our new arts and civic programming for the Seattle Channel, which helped create the greatest and best, we think, government channel in the county. And we consistently win awards for program excellence. $2 million in capital funds that were used for the Seattle Channel and public access channel. Nothing up front this time. We were able to secure a PEG fee of .4 percent of Comcast’s gross revenues that we anticipate will generate approximately $8 million over the next ten years. Although we did not get a civic engagement grant like we did last time, we did receive $500,000 to support digital equity initiatives in the City.

All together, we kind of got to where we wanted to be, taking inflation into account. Given the limitations of the 621 Order, we went from a stance of trying to get as much as we can to ‘let’s just try and remain whole.’

Next line, again we were able to continue to get free cable connections to schools and City buildings, which was a big win for us, without deductions of franchise fees. And free advertising for the Seattle Channel up on the cable network. Also, we insisted that public education and government channels have the same technical standards as the best commercial offerings from cable operators.

Next one: We can talk more about these. Cable discount, which was important.

Next line: I want to talk a little bit about some considerations that you may not have heard too much about, but were also part of the overall package that we negotiated. We got $450,000 from Comcast that was in dispute over payment of franchise fees. We had a disagreement as to methodology that should be used for providing the City franchise fees. We felt that they had underpaid. They said, ‘No we don’t owe you anything.’ And like in any good negotiation, you both need to come to some resolution. So, you probably didn’t hear too much about that, but we did get $450,000 for that, which the department could use for most purposes. It probably will be used some way for Digital Equity programs. $100,000 per year for five years in support of Digital Equity. I was in D.C. the day after Council announced the franchise, and then there was some drama because we found out that Philadelphia had gotten some benefits that we didn’t get. So credit to Michael and the folks who were here when I was gone, who were able to get some additional money from Comcast to put us on par with Philadelphia.

We expanded the free internet program–free internet service to nonprofits in the City. We also got Comcast to agree for the first time to provide cable TV to nonprofits, as well as internet service. And we got a commitment from Comcast to pilot a senior internet discount in the City. Philadelphia got it. We want it, too.

That’s it in a nutshell. A ten year program. Questions?

Joneil Sampana: Going back a couple of slides, what is that four percent?

Tony Perez: It’s a .4 percent.

Joneil Sampana: What is that earmarked for?

Tony Perez: It will be primarily for the Seattle Channel operations and capital support for both the Seattle Channel and the public access channel. It could be used for some other purposes, but in my goal in the negotiations was to keep PEG.

John Tigue: Will these slides be available?

Tony Perez: Yes. Is that a request for public information?

John Tigue: And where would I find them?

David Keyes: I’m going to print out some copies of this presentation for distribution, and it will also be embedded into the minutes.

John Tigue: And that’s all information that we can share?

Derrick Hall: Right. It will be on the web site.

Amy Hirotaka:  Are there any more questions?

Tony Perez: The last thing I’ll add is that this is a ten year franchise. This is the relationship we have built with the cable operator, so this may be what we get today, but I think they understand and everybody understands that City’s needs change, technology evolves. And that we want to be able to exploit any technological developments to address emerging needs in the future.

Dan Stiefel: In the Wave negotiations coming up, how will what you got here affect what you ask for from Wave.

Tony Perez: It’s going to be difficult. They’re a much smaller company, with much smaller resources. Wave probably has less than ten percent of the subscribers. Proportionately, I think we will probably get there. I think they understand that that’s the baseline.

Dan Stiefel:  But you can’t get something really better from them, now that you’ve made this deal with Comcast, because of the 621 Order?

Tony Perez: No. We can negotiate. We don’t know yet.

Dan Stiefel: How does that order affect that? I don’t quite understand that.

Tony Perez: The order was primarily that we couldn’t say to a Century Link, ‘You have to do everything Comcast did. They provide service to all City schools and buildings. You need to go and do that.’ And there was a provision in the Comcast franchise that basically said that if somebody came in on more favorable terms, they get to (reduce their obligations). The problem for us was how do we get, knowing that for Century Link we couldn’t ask for those things. How could we come back to Comcast and say, “Despite what the 621 Order says, we want you to pony up more than Century Link. But we got there somehow. The understanding with Century Link is that time goes on and as you capture more market share, you’ll assume more of these responsibilities. Ideally, if they have half the customers Comcast has, they’ll have about half of the burden.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you, Tony. We have time for public comment, and we will move on to that. We have five minutes for that.


Jose Vasquez: The World Affairs Council is bringing seven youth tech entrepreneurs from Latin America. It will be February 28 to March 12. They’re looking for host families. So if anybody here knows someone or is willing to host seven tech entrepreneurs, come and see me after the meeting.

Dorene Cornwell: How long would it be? That’s a very cool. They might need transportation, too.

Jose Vasquez: The whole week. So they are requiring a room with a bed and meals.


Amy Hirotaka: One more housekeeping issue: If you need a parking pass, see Derrick Hall.


Amy Hirotaka: I will give the Cable and Broadband Committee update. You heard about the Comcast franchise update, which is the bulk of what we’ve been working on thus far. Our next big thing is going to be the Wave franchise agreement, and we’ll be talking about that. To recap our accomplishments over the last year, private input on public benefits for Comcast and Century Link; developed a low income policy decision statement shared with the Mayor and Council; advocated for increased broadband access through changes in the SDOT rules about placing telecommunications cabinets; and one that’s actually missing from here, provided comment to the SEC on their Lifeline Program, which is something that we worked on pretty recently, as well.

One item of business is that now that I am the CTAB chair, I am looking for someone to replace me as the co-chair with Dan Stiefel of the Broadband and Cable Committee. I’ll still be active in the committee, but I am looking for someone to take on the co-chair position. Just putting that out there, and I will be sending out emails.

So let’s move on to the Digital Inclusion Committee and Jose.


Jose Vasquez: Thank you.  First, I want to touch bases on the Technology Matching Fund cycle. We’re going to hold off the Technology Matching Fund cycle for now, until they announce the Digital Equity Plan. Once that comes out and is official, we’ll know exactly what that means. After that, we’ll come back and reassess.

Update on last year: We reviewed and provided recommendations for funding the TMF projects; supported the City’s Get Online and Low Cost Internet campaign; and contributed to the development of the Digital Equity Initiative.

For this year, I am looking for a co-chair, since I’m taking more responsibility. If somebody here is interested in getting more involved with that, contact me.

Amy Hirotaka: Thank you. Let’s move on to the E-Gov Committee.


Joneil Sampana: The E-Gov Committee, as you know, last year we supported a number of different Open Data initiatives, both at the City level and the State level. The most exciting news was the Summer Internship program with the data visualization program, where it placed 13 students from four universities with four private partners. Those were Socrata, Microsoft, and two others. And there were six different government agencies at the State level. So that was a deciding cross collaboration between government and private sectors. Upcoming, our main project for next quarter is going to be the Metro Lab. This is the Urban Center Project that’s happening in March, with the City of Seattle working with the University of Washington to identify different neighborhood initiatives for folks on big data solutions who will be acting as the citizens’ [unintelligible]. As a quick reminder, meetings for E-Gov are typically every fourth Tuesday of the month and held either in the Westlake office down in South Lake Union, or [unintelligible] in Pioneer Square.

Amy Hirotaka: Great. Thank you. And I should have mentioned that the Broadband meetings are the fourth Monday of the month at O’Asian, next door.

Karia Wong: O’Asian is closed.

Amy Hirotaka: O’Asian is closed. Okay. They will be at a new location to be decided.

Question: I was curious about the data mapping initiative. Is there anything available about the City of Seattle?

Joneil Sampana: For the City of Seattle,  not necessarily. There’s a lot of information about tax revenue, so you might be interested. It’s not limited to King County. The revenue came from marijuana sales. King County raised the most money last year, but the approach could be adopted here in the City of Seattle. According to Bruce Blood, we have funding for this program from the four partners to redo the program for a number of different other students, typically from a number of universities. This year, we are looking at community colleges as well as universities.

Open data sets are typically in Excel and hard to read. For citizens that may not be data-savvy, it’s a combination of data analytics, but also story telling for a visual perspective. That’s how they learn from their mentors. [unintelligible]

Ronald: You mentioned universities and colleges. What about boot camps?

Joneil Sampana: We haven’t reached out to those because it just takes some dedicated time to work with student groups. And we got a lot of support from the universities’ career resource centers to help find people who can work on their own, because most of these programs were done virtually. So they were done in Bellingham, Spokane, etc. So we need a specific skill set that will keep them moving during the summertime.

Amy Hirotaka: I should ask if there were any questions for any of the other committee chairs. I don’t thin we have a representative from the Privacy Committee, or we don’t have a CTAB representative. Is there anyone sitting on the outside of the room who could give a Privacy Committee update? If not, I’ll just read through the updates here.


Amy Hirotaka: They provided input into new City privacy policies at CTAB meetings and through CTAB members’ participation in the City’s Privacy Advisory Committee. They conducted planning for a Privacy Symposium, and they held three community based Privacy Workshops. Are there any questons about any of the committees?

David Keyes: Beryl sent out a summary of their privacy work.

Question: Is this related to a federal action?

Amy Hirotaka: I don’t know.

David Keyes: The initial work was more as the City was starting to develop Privacy Policies. One result of that, as Michael mentioned, they’re in the process of hiring a Chief Privacy Officer to establish where we’re coming out on advocacy for the Privacy Initiatives. I don’t know that it’s specifically responsive to the federal thing. Certainly, that’s an important piece of what’s going on. An interesting side note, there’s a letter going around to be submitted to the FCC, asking the FCC to start a proceeding to look into rules around customer rights and privacy for broadband subscribers, to ask them to start a proceeding. I saw that through the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.

John Tigue: How can I get on that?

David Keyes:  I’ll just forward the email through the CTAB notice list. I’ll do that tonight. [See the letter here.]

Dorene Cornwell: I was going to comment about privacy. I had a conversation with Beryl in the last couple of days about her report, and I think privacy is actually a huge interest. When you look at it from City government agencies, you have one reality, but if you’re a customer or a citizen, you have different ones. And if you do open data, there’s lots of questions about how to anonymize. I think that there’s huge interest, so much that a a committee like CTAB’s, what it gets to focus on is one thing and how to do the bigger piece is a bigger picture. There aren’t federal requirements…[unintelligible]

David Keyes: Next month is when CTAB sets its committees for the year. You guys are going to pick what issues you want to work on.

Amy Hirotaka: The next item on the agenda is planning for 2016, including work plans and the annual meeting with Mayor and Council. As far as the annual meeting with Mayor and Council go, are we meant to be coming up with potential dates for those sessions?

David Keyes: What we’ve done in the past is pretty much every year had either the Mayor or Mayor’s representative, and the chair or representative from the City Council committee that was dealing with technology come to CTAB and talk about what their priorities are for the year, and give you guys a chance to ask questions also. And that’s helped inform the work plan. That’s usually the February meeting. We have at times shifted the meeting times slightly if the Mayor is available at 5:00, to do that, or have a slightly extended meeting. Last year–there are two models. One is waiting for the Mayor and Council to come and inform you about what’s coming up and going on. The other is based on what you know already. We know things like the Broadband Map is coming out. The Digital Equity plan is coming out. The Wife strategy. You guys can start to say what’s on your work plan and to present that to the Mayor and Council or to revise it when they come. We can either do a longer meeting and have them come early in the meeting and hash out committees and things, or split that over two meetings. Have them come and go back and work out plans for the year, and adopt them in March. I think we did that last year. The group started to work on what they wanted to do for the year, and got ahead of things. That probably enabled a little bit more conversation when staff came in. What I see as kind of important this year is it had firmed up early what’s on the work plans, and have it be consistent across the different committees, and adopt that.

Joneil Sampana: I think it was a great model to get a lot of the committees to participate, crowd sourcing ideas that we’re passionate about as well. At the end of the day, it does take out people power to get these programs and projects pushed through in 2016. One thing I think is a best practice, is now that we have Digital Equity Initiative and that framework. If we’re able to identify what program or project that interests us, and match our alignment to one of these key goals, then overall, all of our committees within CTAB align to the City-wide Digital Equity Plan. So we can find out where our gaps are, where we’re doing really well, and try this cohesive approach.

David Keyes: And the other thing that we can do. Last year, folks posted what their draft work plan topics were. So that was open for public comment. You put the word out and you give people a chance to have some input.

Joneil Sampana:  Going back to the data visualization project, underneath the S3, skill training, we’re providing specific skills to students and communities of color, and the City can bring those numbers up and show a dashboard from what we’re doing, holistically, to other citizens and then cite what project from what organization.

Question: Those interns are who the university hires?

Joneil Sampana: We tried to encourage that, although we wanted the best students. For those students having trouble finding those positions, let’s have community centers or career resource centers at universities pay special attention to that.

Amy Hirotaka: It sounds like it’s better to have work plans in place before the February meeting. Do we have confirmation that mayoral staff and council staff will be here?

David Keyes: No we don’t.

Amy Hirotaka: But it sounds like having work plans in place prior to when they are able to come, in order to have a richer conversation with them. It sounds like out goal should be for the committee to have a draft work plan in place before the February meetings. That is something we can circulate to staff prior to the meeting?

David Keyes: Yes.

Amy Hirotaka: Are there any representatives from the Privacy Committee here tonight? Okay. Unclear about how to proceed on that one, but we’ll figure it out. Does that sound amenable to CTAB members? David, are you the point person on scheduling with staff?

David Keyes: Yes. I’ll get back to you. I’ll try and confirm that.

Comment: So, there’s City staff that write up the plans that are reviewed by this group before they are shared with the Mayor?

Amy Hirotaka:  Committees are not staffed by City staff. Those are volunteers, generally with a CTAB member representing, and there are a lot folks here who participate in committees. Dan Stiefel is co-chair for a committee, for example. So those are community members.

David Keyes:  We have myself as the main liaison to the full board. We probably do the most staff support in writing minutes and such. And then there’s a staff liaison around content to each of the committees, but he committees are self-managed. Tony has been the liaison for broadband issues. Bruce has worked with E-Gov and Open Data. I worked with Digital Inclusion.

Amy Hirotaka: But the actual product should come from members being informed by City staff.

David Keyes:  Yes. We can help integrate. The important thing–and I don’t think we will know all of this by February, because I think there are a lot of pieces coming on for the City–but we want to make sure that you guys have meaningful input at meaningful times. And can move things forward. And we also know, because you guys are all volunteers, your time is really valuable and there’s a limited amount that you can do. We want to figure out the best use of your time. I think we can help figure out in terms of time. We can check back with Michael on the open data piece and say what’s the forecast timing for something this year. We know from Tony that we’re starting the Wave franchise piece, but that will really kick up later in the year. Because the goals will be to have most of the agreement in place by June of next year. This year is the community needs ascertainment and starting to frame that. I don’t see anything coming up with the Seattle Channel. On connectivity, we are going to potentially put out an RFP for the WiFi strategy. We’re waiting on the timing on that.

We’ve got a couple of templates that have been used in the past. I can send those around. I think some of the metrics on the Digital Equity plan are being put into place. We’re trying to figure out how to scale up each of the work items within that. Some of those will be shorter term. Some won’t be implemented until late this year or next year, depending on community resources.

Joneil Sampana: Aren’t our current work plans in the minutes some place?

David Keyes:  Yes. The current ones were posted in the CTAB blog.

Question: Can we have committee descriptions?

David Keyes:  Yes. I think there was a mix in terms of formatting and stuff this last year. I’ll try and look for those and send them out so you guys don’t have to look for those. It was probably February or March. I’ll check with the Council staff and we’ll work with the Mayor’s office on some scheduling, so stay tuned.

Amy Hirotaka: CTAB members, are we all good with using our scheduled meeting time for this with the Mayor’s staff and Council?

David Keyes: I know that the City Council just this last week passed and approved what their committees will be. The technology component is still with Bruce Harrell as chair, but all the committees have changed somewhat. I’ll send out that link, which is easily find-able at seattle.gov/council. To see what the committees are, you can now see which new Councilmembers are on which committees. There is an associated description of them. Good to understand where Councilmembers are coming from, and what their intentions might be, because there is some crossover to other committees. If you guys are out in the community and happen to be talking to the Councilmembers, to make that connection. I know that Lorena Gonzalez is the co-chair of the committee that is also the tech committee. Equity and Governance have Tim Burgess as a third member on that. You can go on the web site and you can subscribe to alerts for the committee, which gets you the agenda for the committee. I found one useful thing about that is, oftentimes if there are briefing on something that will range from Michael doing something on the cable franchise or Smart Cities initiative to somebody coming in and talking about housing related issues. So there’s some good briefing with the materials that also happen at the Council committee meetings and that’s a way to get those materials right away and see what’s going on.

Amy Hirotaka: We should move on now to wrap up. One thing that isn’t here is, I think we all really liked the way Joneil did action items from the meetings so we could know what we’re doing moving forward. I captured a few. Jose, if you could go over what you captured.

Jose Vasquez: Sure. First relative to the launch date for seattle.gov, they’re asking us to share [unintelligible]. Waiting to get confirmation from the Mayor and City Council on the February meeting. Drafting work plans and having them ready for feedback at the February meeting. And David will send out the templates for us to review and maybe pick one.

Amy Hirotaka: Anyone else?

Joneil Sampana: Did you mention the Diversity Initiative launch. We’re trying to find a date, and once we do, get it to the right communities.

David Keyes: And I’m going to send out the National Digital Inclusion Alliance info about the letter to call for the FCC to do a proceeding on the broadband consumer and privacy rights. I’ll send out the notes so that everyone can get a copy of the presentations that were done tonight.

Joneil Sampana: I’ll make a special request to include in the minutes the URL for the presentations from tonight.

Amy Hirotaka: Last item, are there any topics that people would like to see covered at our next meeting? It seems that, depending on scheduling, a lot of it will likely be taken up potentially working with Mayor’s and Council’s staff. But if there are any other items that folks would like to see covered, you can always email me.

Comment: I’d like to see a presentation on the new DoIT Civic Technology work.

David Keyes: I’ll mention that to Candace Faber and see if we can arrange that, with Jim Loter.









February 9th, 2016, Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board Agenda

City of Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board

Draft Meeting Agenda for February 9th, 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 CommunityTechnology@seattle.gov

Introductions 5
Approval of agenda and January minutes 2
Mayor Murray’s 2016 priorities 15
Councilmember Harrell’s 2016 priorities 15
Public comment & announcements 10
E-gov Committee report: Joneil Sampana 5
Broadband Committee report: Amy Hirotaka 5
Break 10
Determine committee structures and work plan development 40
Wrap up and next meeting agenda items 5

January 12th, 2016 Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board Agenda

City of Seattle Community Technology Advisory Board

Draft Meeting Agenda for January 12th, 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 CommunityTechnology@seattle.gov

Introductions 5
Approval of agenda and Nov minutes 5
CTO Report: Smart Cities project & upcoming for 2016: Michael Mattmiller 15
Seattle.gov redesign: Jeff Beckstrom 10
Digital Equity update –strategies overview: David Keyes 10
Comcast franchise agreement update/overview: Tony Perez 10
Public comment 5
Break 10
Committee updates and 2015 accomplishments (5 min per committee) 20
–        Broadband & Cable
–        Privacy
–        Digital Inclusion
–        E-gov
2016 Planning: workplans, annual meetings with Mayor & Council 15
Wrap up and next meeting 5