How do you find out basic information about your City, whether it is the hours of your local library, how to apply for a permit to build an addition to your home, or how to have a say about an issue of concern to you?
For many, the answer will be that they will look on-line. The City of Greater Sudbury (CGS) has recognized the increased use of the internet and social media by residents. Approximately one year ago, a new ‘Notice Policy’ was adopted by Council. The new importance of on-line communications was recognized in this report, and City staff have commented numerous times at public meetings on the quantity of electronic submissions now received.
Over the past few years, the City has made an effort to interact with its citizens on-line, encouraging on-line submissions for public input, and creating a presence on Facebook and twitter. Just under a year ago, the City also revamped their website. In addition to visual improvements, there are now more services offered on-line (e.g. building permits can now be submitted electronically), and items of interest are circulated on the home page. One of the first items to be featured was information about the upcoming transit garage, which was the subject of some public criticism and scrutiny at the time.
An effective city website should allow citizens to easily access basic information, access municipal services, provide public input, and ask and receive answers to questions. So – how does the revamped City of Greater Sudbury website measure up? For some answers, postings of agendas and minutes were monitored for 1 month, and a simple survey was administered.
The survey was given to three active citizens, ranging from a university undergraduate student to a middle-aged professional, all comfortable on-line. They were given the task of finding fourteen basic pieces of information to find on the City website. These included items such as their Councillor’s name, Council decisions, library hours, and transit information.
Five of the fourteen items (36%) were found easily (with under 10 ‘clicks) by all three. A further two items were found easily by two of the three. Three of the fourteen (21%) were found with difficulty or by only 1 person. Four of the fourteen (29%) were not found at all.
Participants found it easy to find the name and contact information of their Councillor, and the date of the next Council meeting, but not what decisions Council had recently made. It was usually possible to find what bus to take, but not how to make a complaint to transit. Information such as a schedule of road repairs, and the type of development allowed in their neighbourhood was not accessible. Searching for a specific planning decision by file number was also unsuccessful. For the full results of the survey, see the attached file.
Difficulties with searches was a recurrent problem. Participants chose five items to find using the search bar. None of these searches were successful. “The search bar is a total failure, and just using an ordinary search database like Google provides much more accurate information. The search bar is without a doubt the worst part of this website,” wrote one participant. “The search tool needs to be improved,” agreed another. Some community groups note that staff reports are notoriously difficult to find unless the precise date they were presented to Council is known.
This website did improve visually. “It’s beautiful aesthetically. Much cleaner,” one person wrote. However, participants did not find the website intuitive to use. “For some things, it was easy to locate the desired links and information, while some information was completely hidden and impossible to find,” explained one. Participants noted that the website may be more difficult to use without prior knowledge of municipal services and issues. “It helps that I know my Councillor’s name,” wrote one. “For me, it was easy to find most of the environmentally related questions, since I know the terminology and many of the initiatives already. For someone who’s new to this it would take more time and be more confusing,” another wrote.
Participants suggested they would like to see an easy search for city services such as libraries, pools, ski hills, transit, etc. Another suggestion was to condense related links into one, to avoid confusion. “This way, it’s less intimidating than reading through 100 links and trying to figure out which of the similar and vague descriptions matches what you’re looking for,” said one.
Council meeting agendas and minutes are especially important to access for citizens acting on or following civic issues. The posting of agendas and minutes for meetings of Council and Council committees was followed for one month (February 2013). Consistent with the longer term experience of local activists, it was found that agendas were available 1-2 business days prior to a meeting, or six business days prior to a Planning Committee meeting (subject to specific provincial rules on notice). Minutes were posted approximately one month after the meeting was held (an average of 26 days). Postings were generally made late on a Friday.
The extremely short notice of what items are being dealt with on the agenda makes it difficult for citizens to participate in the civic dialogue. There is very little time to contact their Councillor, become more informed, or provide comments on the decisions being made. Individuals and groups who have been following an issue have insufficient notice to accommodate their schedule, and spread the word to others who may be interested in attending the meeting (meetings of Council and committee of Council are open to the public). This is aggravated by lack of communication, so that groups who have brought forward an issue, or even those who will be presenting at the meeting, receive equally short notice. Similarly, involved citizens can have a long wait until the results of Council meetings are available on-line. Lack of timely updates has also been noted for other key information that the public has the right to access.
It should be noted that Public Hearings for planning applications are required to provide more notice, and so agendas, and often minutes, for Planning Committee meetings can be found on-line more readily. Notices of Public Hearings can be found earlier than agendas here.
The City did not appear to solicit public input on their revamped website, although they do have a website feedback survey link in small font at the bottom of the home page. There is a general ‘contact us’ page, but no easily accessible contacts for specific needs. The ‘contact us’ page references the city’s 3-1-1 phone service which connects residents to a call centre to direct their call to the correct department. It is worth noting that 3-1-1 calls are tracked, whereas on-line comments are not. This can make it more difficult to follow up on a complaint or query made on-line, and may skew data on resident complaints gathered by the city. Similarly, public input received on-line does not have the same legal status as input received in a formal letter, something anyone who may wish to challenge a decision should keep in mind.
Finding information and communicating on-line is now the norm. Efforts by the City to connect with residents in this medium recognize this fact. However, there are clearly improvements to be made in ease of use, and timely access to information. To be fully functional, it is also essential that electronic input, queries, and complaints are tracked in the same way as 3-1-1 calls. As changes continue, it will be important to retain the connection with those residents not on-line.
Naomi Grant chairs Coalition for a Liveable Sudbury, and regulary visits the City website
