Teleconferencing. May 21, 2020

Copyright © 2020                               John F. Oyler

May 21, 2020

Teleconferencing

We are now into the ninth week of quarantine and running out of ways to look at it positively. We have sipped our “half-full glass” very slowly and are eagerly looking forward to its being refilled soon. This week’s positive observation is a sincere one – the technology of teleconferencing has worked well.

Our experience with the seven Senior Design final presentations certainly was positive, albeit a poor substitute for our normal in-person colloquium. So far I have successfully hosted two virtual meetings of our elderly gentlemen’s Book Review Club and have another scheduled later this month.

Son John has participated in two large “biotech” panel discussions as well as numerous company meetings via teleconference, all from his home office. Elizabeth successfully finished her semester teaching two courses on-line, all the while lamenting the absence of face-to-face contact with her students.

My grand-daughter Rachael had a very special teleconference experience. The members of the Three Rivers Young People’s Orchestra were treated to a virtual discussion with Itzhak Perlman. What a thrill for an aspiring young violinist! The orchestra has another virtual meeting scheduled, this one with Maestro Manfred Honeck, from his sequestered home in Austria.

Each of these examples is positive, although none of them match the effectiveness of in-person meetings. I have, however, recently encountered several examples where the teleconference is an improvement over its predecessor.

For a number of years, it has been possible to view filmed records of the Bridgeville Borough Council meetings as well as those of the Bridgeville Planning Commission, thanks to “Bridgeville.org”. These were often interesting, although difficult to follow. It was frequently hard to decipher what was being said.

The current situation has forced both of these bodies to meet remotely; the recordings of their meetings are an order of magnitude easier to follow than were the films of previous meetings. In addition, the fact that the participants are in different locations has forced them to be quite explicit, making it much easier for viewers to understand what is happening.

The April Council meeting came first; its recording was a pleasant surprise although most of the business transacted in that meeting tended toward the trivial. One obvious thing missing was the absence of any comment from visitors, although the moderator clearly provided an opportunity for them to be heard.

This absence points out an apparent weakness of this process. Normally these meetings provide an opportunity for private citizens to communicate their grievances and compliments to the Council in person. Unfortunately, the several perennial watch-dogs whom we know are latter day Luddites, unable to participate in these remote sessions.

Actually, Luddite is not the appropriate term for these folks. The original Luddites were a secret organization dedicated to the destruction of “modern” machinery that was perceived as a threat to skilled artisans in the textile industry. The term has evolved into a connotation referring to anyone opposed to technological progress.

Folks who are unable or unwilling to acquire the necessary capability to participate in today’s internet culture are in danger of being disenfranchised. This is indeed unfortunate, as their dissenting opinions need to be heard, to ensure rational decisions are made by these bodies.

This appears to be particularly relevant to the Planning Commission. The recording of their on-line meeting in April was impressive, especially because the format required displaying the documents they were discussing in a fashion that made them readily available to viewers.

The Planning Commission consists of seven well-meaning citizens. It has no authority; its primary responsibility is to make recommendations to Borough Council, based on their perception of what is best for the community.

This particular meeting began with the Chairman reporting their intention to discuss ten basic community issues remaining from a list of nineteen that had been articulated in the 2004 Bridgeville Comprehensive Plan. At this point a decision matrix was presented and each member asked to evaluate “community value” and “cost” on a scale of one to ten for each issue. The results of this evaluation will enable the Commission to prioritize the issues, for the May meeting.

They then proceeded to discuss five specific issues – Traffic Study, Conformance and Code Enforcement, Trail Connectivity, Baldwin Street, and Parking Issues – with a different member of the Commission coordinating the discussion on a particular issue. The discussions were constructive; several of them highlighted the importance of input from the community.

As an outsider, my input is irrelevant. Nonetheless I was surprised at the focus of several of the issues. For years I have heard people complaining about the traffic congestion in Bridgeville, particularly approaching the South End bridge. Based upon what I heard and read on the “Traffic Study” document, it appears the community views speeding, especially on Bank Street, as the critical traffic issue. On reflection, I realized that my contacts were fellow outsiders, complaining about their difficulty getting to and from I-79.

“Baldwin Street”, of course, was of particular interest to me. Several years ago one of our Senior Design teams studied flooding in McLaughlin Run, and we became aware of the proposal that Bower Hill Road and all the properties on the north side of Baldwin Street be abandoned. It will be interesting to follow this discussion; fortunately the Commission now includes a highly competent engineer. I was surprised the abandoned mine pollution in McLaughlin Run is not considered a relevant issue.

The “Trail Connectivity” issue generated a suggestion that Bank Street be extended to Washington Avenue, via a railroad grade crossing, to improve access to the Library. I still prefer the solution our Senior Design students recommended – a pedestrian bridge leading to James Street.

All told, I was well impressed with the meeting and the business-like way the Commission is addressing the future planning process. I do hope they will continue to solicit community input. At least for most folks this format could well be a modern version of the old-fashioned town meetings.