The SeeClickFix module is a "freeware" social media site that the City has no ability to moderate or manage. We still intent to monitor the site to identify issues for resolution, but the formal submittal process is via the new GenevaWork module, available on the City website. This was announced via multiple traditional and social media released.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

It seems like being able to upload images is critical.. does that plan to be added? I'm involved in the Downtown city neighborhood and we've done a lot of talking about using SCF and have started telling people that that's the tool to use. Perhaps the neighborhood associations and the GNRC should be notified? What features were missing from the admin side?

This change is news to me as well. Will City personnel be replying to SCF postings and updating progress on SCF?

I'm guessing that this exact back-and-forth is a reason for the demise of SCF.

SCF also had great phone integration and with a program like this, making it easy for the end users to operate is critical. I'm glad to hear that SCF will still be monitored. It looks like SCF has an API that could be used to integrate the City's new solution as well as SCF. Has this been explored?

Why does the City need to have the ability to "moderate or manage" the posts here? This is a forum in which residents, homeowners, landlords, and City officials can openly discuss issues and engage in often useful dialogue that can inform, enlighten and build bridges. The new system doesn't allow for any of that.

You are correct. SeeClickFix does not need to be moderated or managed. It is not a creation of the CIty, so the City cannot dismantle it. It will still be monitored to ensure that issues are noted and resolved. The City has simply elected to develop a new solution which is less about interaction between residents, and more about reporting issues. Residents have the option to use both. We will continue to modify and enhance the Geneva Works system in response to many great comments, particularly relative to posting photos. So, in short, if you just need to report an issue and receive confirmation when it has been resolved, you have the option to use Geneva Works. If you are interested in interacting actively with your neighbors on issues via online dialogue, feel free to use SeeClickFix.

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

I may have not been clear in my question. When initially asked for reasons why the city was abandoning the SCF system, you stated "The SeeClickFix module is a "freeware" social media site that the City has no ability to moderate or manage." My question to you is this: Why does the city feel that they need to moderate or manage the SCF system and why is this a reason to abandon the system? And what makes Geneva different from numerous other cities that use SCF without feeling the need to control the dialogue?

Additionally, the City of Geneva website press released states that "This program is intended to replace and enhance the previous “SeeClickFix” module, previously used by the City." But in your reply here, you are stating that SeeClickFix will still be monitored and issues will be noted and resolved. These statements are in direct conflict, and are confusing at best.

And finally, your reply says that "if you are interested in interacting actively with your neighbors on issues via online dialogue, feel free to use SeeClickFix." What if I am interested in interacting actively with all members of the community and holding everyone accountable? Why does the City want to treat residents like consumers of government, rather than active, valuable participants and citizens?

Also, you don't need to use formalities and thank anyone for the opportunity to comment. This is a free and transparent forum available to all! :)

To your first question, we have no need to moderate or manage SeeClickFix. That said, when it is linked to our website, we are looking for alignment with the City's values, mission and vision. While the open dialogue portion certainly contributes positively to our objectives, many of the interactions on SeeClickFix became abusive (both on the site and off). That is *not* something we want to promote. In a moderated forum, we could regulate abusive conduct, delete hurtful comments, expel repeatedly hateful posters, etc. In SeeClickFix, we cannot. So, we do not need to moderate or manage the application, but we also don't want it to appear as "endorsed" by the City when this conduct is apparent.

All of that said, there are many users who simply state their issue, or their support for a stated issue and move on. That alone is reason for monitoring. But moreover, I am interested in the "pulse" of our community, and this can be a helpful tool to monitor and engage with that. I do the same thing on the Finger Lakes 1 forum. When an issue is presented, I research it with my staff, and attempt to remedy it. When a misstatement of fact is put forward, I correct it. When a question is asked, I answer it. It's an open dialogue, with the ability for posters to add photos, ask questions,etc. It isn't attached to the City website or endorsed by us in any way. But...we still use it as a tool.

Anyone who has had interaction with me understands that I do not view the City as a "producer of government" for our community's "consumption." I believe strongly in open, active dialogue. One of our Strategic Imperatives remains "Talent Capitalization," which suggests that our greatest asset from an intellectual and physical capital standpoint is our great community.

This will remain a valuable tool for me to both understand what the issues are, and what value our residents and other stakeholders attach to them.

Thanks.

After taking the time to read through all 761 issues that have been posted for the Geneva SeeClickFix website since January 2011, here's what I've found.

761 Issues
717 Closed Issues
94% of Issues Resolved

9 Issues in which the commenters engaged in abusive language or personal attacks toward other residents

1.2% of Issues that resulted in abusive language or personal attacks

==========================

Your statement that "many" interactions on this site become "abusive" is not supported by an examination of the posted Issues over the past nearly 4 years.

Bear in mind, I didn't consider a comment as 'abusive' if a frustrated resident harshly criticized a city employee, official or department. These criticisms were also based on the poster's opinion of a city worker's job performance (albeit in not the most flowery language), and in a few cases, there were some very thoughtful responses from city representatives.

What I was most pleased and excited to see were HUNDREDS and HUNDREDS of issues that were resolved by John Brennan, Mark Perry, Lt. Heieck and other city representatives. There were also many times that I was educated and enlightened about city ordinances, codes, and how much work the DPW and others do every day in our city.

Additionally, I saw quite a number of issues that weren't initially resolved, and then after a resident or two asked for a follow-up, those issues were resolved. This makes it show that like all of us, in all lines of work, sometimes we need a little nudge and to be held accountable by our employers.

In my estimation, SeeClickFix has been an overwhelming success and has shown that the City is not afraid to honestly and openly address its issues with its citizens.

And while I understand quite well that SeeClickFix will remain available to residents, if the City and the GNRC begin directing all new and old residents to ONLY submit their issues to GenevaWorks, there's no question that there will be less activity on SeeClickFix.

I have some other questions:

What do you think about transparency?
Do you think that GenevaWorks is less transparent than SeeClickFix?
Do you think that the citizens of Geneva would be better served by less transparency or more transparency?

Thanks, I think this is a great discussion and I appreciate it!

Oh, and one more question, if I may:

In a recent City of Geneva newsletter, the GenevaWorks system is called a "more efficient way of filing a concern." The GenevaWorks page states, "The City of Geneva is committed to open, responsive community services." A press release states that GenevaWorks will "improve efficiency and effectiveness."

Can you explain how you expect that the GenevaWorks system will be more efficient and effective, and how you think that Geneva's commitment to "open...community services" is better served by GenevaWorks than by SeeClickFix?

These are excellent questions! And good job doing the research!

I can't really set a threshold for how many abusive comments is too many. It's one of those situations where I just know it when I see it. When, as a staff, we perceived the tone of SeeClickFix to be departing from our brand values (particularly inclusiveness and respect), we started working on a solution.

I agree that the staff was very responsive to complaints, and that any SeeClickFix user could track the progress of discrete issues. This made for efficiency in the deployment of services, and effectiveness in terms of resident confidence (or at least a level of confidence) in the City's willingness to listen, respond, and act.

I believe that, as public officials, we need to be as transparent as possible. But transparency is not the only priority. It is among the highest, but it competes with protecting our residents' rights to privacy (when wanted) and confidence that they can report an issue without reprisal. GenevaWorks (as a standalone) is less transparent *on discrete issues and in real time* than SeeClickFix. And even then, that slightly reduced transparency only applies to individuals who did not report the issue. The reporter receives information in real time on the issue status and steps toward resolution.

It is our intent to publish results regularly, which will demonstrate the nature of issues received, the response time, and other pertinent data. So, to your question, I think that, to the issue reporter, transparency is not diminished. To the SeeClickFix community, transparency is only limited in real time and for discrete issues (and only for issues not reported through SeeClickFix). The citizens of Geneva are, in the vast, vast majority of situations better served by transparency. Only in the most limited of circumstances (such as disrespectful or abusive behavior), should transparency be limited, and even then we must seek ways to get the information out there.

In terms of efficiency, departments will only receive issues (directly) that affect their area of operations. They will receive the issue directly, address it, and report its resolution. The resolution (and progress toward resolution) will be reported to the person filing the issue.

The GenevaWorks module allows us to aggregate and analyze the data. In order to identify patterns, a cross-functional team (already in existence prior to the deployment of GenevaWorks) will review aggregate data and make necessary policy and procedural changes. This enhances effectiveness.

In terms of "open...community services," the term "open" is used as an enhancement to "accessible". Think of it in terms of building improvements. "Accessible" is a long and winding ramp, that while meeting the letter of the Americans with Disabilities Act, isn't the easiest way to get into a building. "Open" is an elevator, which the user can just move into and press a button to get into the building. SeeClickFix made government accessible. However, over time, it alienated certain users. GenevaWorks is accessible...and open. Both remain in use. We will be responsive to both.

Sorry for the long response!

Excellent questions that I hope are addressed with valid arguments!

Mr. Horn,
What if the bulk of citizens don't agree with your decision? Is this how Democracy works?

To be fair, the bulk of citizens don't use either system. We still receive far more calls and direct emails than online submissions. We make many decisions every day that not everyone agrees with. We work to balance the needs and priorities of all citizens. I have engaged with multiple City Councilors on the issue, worked to address their concerns/recommendations (which they continue to provide), and will take direction from them, as democracy works.

To be fair, the bulk of citizens don't know about SCF because the city never promoted it. Your reasons for not using it exclusively have no data or verification to back it up, whereas the benefits of using it have actual statistics. Is it wise to use taxpayer time/money to operate another whole system when there is already an effective system in place? Can you tell us which City Councilors you have engaged with and where each stands on SCF? Thank you.

I can't speak for any City Councilor, other than to say that several have reached out to me, and asked me to provide information on the topics raised here and on social media. I have provided them with the same information I have provided here. The taxpayer investment of time and resources to administer both SeeClickFix and GenevaWorks are equal, except that we may see more issues submitted with 2 active systems, which is a good thing.

We marketed SeeClickFix with multiple press releases, radio appearances, social media interactions, and announcements via the televised City Council meetings (to the point that the operators of SeeClickFix contacted me to discuss opportunities for the paid version of the service based on media coverage). It was also prominently placed on the City and GNRC websites. Any more vigorous marketing of the GenevaWorks rollout is only attributable to the fact that we now have a contracted marketing position, which is charged with getting this kind of information out.

A Google search for any articles from between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011 and related to the SeeClickFix rollout in Geneva returned zero results for news articles or press releases. A search of the Finger Lakes Times online archive also came up empty. If the city had aggressively promoted SeeClickFix at the time of its launch, an article would certainly show up somewhere. I was also unable to find any news articles or press releases related to SeeClickFix after the launch and up until 2015, except for the occasional mention in an article about the city. Of course, the occasional Facebook post may not show up in a Google search.

It appears that while SeeClickFix may have been mentioned here or there in the occasional article or interview, it certainly hasn't been marketed in a substantial way, at all.

Perhaps you are misremembering how SeeClickFix has been marketed in the past four years?

So, it appears that you're saying that when 1% of all posts on the site might be considered (by some) to be abusive, that's enough for the city to abandon a system that not only is 94% successful, but has never truly been marketed effectively as a tool for city residents.

There are hundreds of cities, including many the size of Geneva, using SeeClickFix to varying levels of success. I've had a very difficult time finding examples of cities who have embraced the platform to the level that Geneva has, then abandoned it.

Can you explain why you think Geneva is so different from other cities that it is taking this highly unusual step to abandon a transparent, successful and community-building platform for one that isn't accountable to the public at all?

I only had a quick moment to search the FLT archives, so I can do a deeper dive later, but here's one (http://www.fltimes.com/news/have-a-city-issue-you-want-addressed-post-it-to/article_94204ff2-b873-11e5-b405-2767c2a921cb.html). For at least the first 6 months of the deployment, I also ended every radio broadcast I did with "be sure to report all issues to See Click Fix!" And, as noted, it was featured prominently on the City and GNRC websites.

As I also noted, I can't really set a threshold for abusive behavior and detachment from our core values of respect and inclusion, but I know it when I see it...

It seems like there are enough concerns to warrant approaching the public for input on this and having the councilors approach their constituents. If this is a tool for the general public to use and you want it to be used, their buy-in is the most important thing. Barring that, it might be a case where a petition could be needed to demonstrate the public's opinion and demonstrate a large concern. It could also go a long way to educate the public about SCF which is necessary. Just saying "Use blah-blah-blah" isn't enough. There needs to be some info on the web page, maybe a tutorial. I think there are several options to make all the stakehoders happy here, from using the SCF API with your drupal module to moving to the pay version of SCF. I can tell you that in my experience I've rarely had a custom piece of software that was designed to sidestep an existing pay product work out well.

I believe that are cases where a gut instinct is good enough. But when that becomes questioned it should be revisited.

Seems to me like SCF does a great job of monitoring posts, thank you to whomever keeps flagging mine! You can keep doing so if it makes you happy, I'll keep re-posting. Either way, back to my last comments:

I will let go asking which City Council members you (Matt Horn) spoke with, although I can't understand why that information is not transparent, as it should be.

I also don't agree that the new operation does not cost the taxpayers time/money. We have a free system in place that works. Creating a new system and maintaining a third does not seem economical.

Also, I think it's safe to say that SCF contacts all city government to try and get them to buy the paid version, as they are a business. The link you posted was an article from yesterday, promoting GenevaWorks btw. It also states, “This program replaces the previous “SeeClickFix’’ module use by the city.” Your comments on the 'replacement' continue to be confusing/misleading.

Mr. Horn, I appreciate you acknowledging the distinction in terms of transparency with the two systems, although I wouldn't agree that there's only "slightly less" transparency with GenevaWorks. It think it's a very wide margin.

You say the GenevaWorks module allows you to aggregate and assess data. But SCF does as well, and it's already in place. I can't see how data collection and assessment would be more efficient using GenevaWorks, especially with a system already in place.

In addition, the data that is collected by SCF is in the hands of everyone in the city. Any citizen can do his or her own assessment of the data, and draw their own conclusions. With GenevaWorks, that information is kept by the City, and then offered back to the citizens at the City's discretion.

To have given this information freely to the citizenry for four years, and then to take it away with no public discussion or forewarning, doesn't reflect well on the City.

It seems to me that all of the issues with SCF that you've stated could have been solved very simply:

The link to SCF on the City's websites could have a disclaimer stating that the City is not responsible for any abusive or harassing language on the SCF site, encouraging anyone who had issues with abusive or harassing language to 'flag' the offending comments on SCF, thereby allowing the community to police its own discussions.

Thanks for the catch, Tricia! As I said, it was a quick search (perhaps too quick). A follow-up search found a good description of the program in a column the Mayor and I wrote in 2012, along with references to the application in articles about the 2013 budget and a Spencer Tullis column critiquing our Code Enforcement efforts. As I noted, we also prominently featured it on our website, and in social media efforts, and in my regular radio appearances.

I'm not sure I follow your numbers on "maintaining a third" (system). SeeClickFix is a free application that simply intakes issues. It is up to the City to direct which staff members must subscribe and (manually) filter the feed to their own area of operations. GenevaWorks based in another free application, which one staff member will anchor and distribute reported issues to the appropriate department. That one staff person would have been monitoring the old system anyway. Now we go from 7 or 8 staff people monitoring the site and filtering the issues to a single staff person intaking the issue and distributing to appropriate staff. It is absolutely far more efficient, and costs the exact same as the SeeClickFix freeware. The only customization required was the form fields, and since it's a very short form, that was a minor investment of time. All of the coding, maintenance, etc. is handled in the exact same manner as SeeClickFix--by a very proven 3rd party operator (Google).

I am sorry that my communication may not have been clear. The official, City-endorsed reporting venue was SeeClickFix. It is now GenevaWorks. I will continue to personally monitor SeeClickFix, as I do Fingerlakes 1, and dozens of social media accounts, to determine if there are other issues being reported. All issues tied to City departments reported to SeeClickFix will be acknowledged and resolved.

Thanks.

GTown Resident: That is a *FANTASTIC* suggestion. I will absolutely explore that immediately (well, in the morning) with my staff and get their take.

Proof that resident engagement and dialogue pay off. Thanks so much for the conversation!!!

Thank you for considering my suggestion. Please know, though, that I still believe that SCF needs to be returned to its role as the primary reporting module for the City and promoted as such.

In the event that SCF becomes the primary module for reporting issues, here is some sample text that I threw together. This text would be displayed on the web page where visitors to the City's website would find the SCF link.

=========================================

SeeClickFix is the online communications platform used by the City of Geneva for citizens to report non-emergency issues, and for City government to track, manage, and reply--ultimately making our community better through transparency, collaboration, and cooperation.

You may report issues anonymously, or you may register as an active participant. The neighborhood concerns that you report, like potholes and light outages, are routed to the right official with the right information. You may even sign up to receive notifications when issues are reported in your neighborhood.

Representatives of the Police Department, Department of Public Works, Code Enforcement, and other City agencies monitor and respond to issues raised by citizens. On occasion, issues have even been resolved by citizens and community groups. Anyone can monitor the progress of issues and learn more about City operations and our neighborhoods.

Because SeeClickFix is a third party platform, the City of Geneva cannot moderate the site is not responsible for abusive or inappropriate posts. However, the option to 'flag' offensive posts is available, and moderators from the SeeClickFix system will delete posts that are deemed inappropriate. In this way, the Geneva SeeClickFix community can hold one another accountable to our community standard of respectful and helpful dialogue.

Even if you don't have an issue to report at this time, we invite you to become engaged on SeeClickFix and take an active role in the present and future of our city.

(SEECLICKFIX LINK WITH GRAPHIC)

=========================================

The new system does not seem to list the "call-and-response" for all to see. While the commenting system here can sometimes get out of hand, at least it was a visible record of our City offices dealing with the reports.

Did I miss a button at GenevaWorks that would list current reports and City response?

The new system has zero transparency, that's why. I believe that's why they are switching to this 'new' system, to remove transparency. Even though the percentage of issues that 'got out of hand' were about 1%. Seems like the city government got tired of being held publicly accountable, took the first excuse to bail out and thinks the reasons for doing so are convincing. I suppose it's a tough change for city employees, but in a city with one of the highest taxes and no money in the accounts, benefits galore for city employees of pensions, RAISES, health insurance and more, I think it's time to start operating differently. See Click Fix is one way to do that and needs to be the PRIMARY system the city uses.

The number 1 user complaint from SeeClickFix detractors was the ability to report an issue and receive feedback from the City without broadcasting it. These users felt that this prompted the abusive behavior.

It's tough to say that we "took the first excuse to bail out." The system operated for over 4 years, and as was pointed out here, from a City response standpoint, operated well. I think that, with some of the constructive commentary offered here, we will be able to reintegrate SeeClickFix as the primary system for issue resolution. We should have a resolution within a couple of days.

Thanks!

I think that you should post the Code Enforcement Officers contact information on the City Website. I can't find it up there. Then people could contact him without "broadcasting it" on See Click Fix if they wanted to. The city website is a nightmare to navigate.

Contact phone numbers for specific issue areas would be a great addition to an issue resolution page. I will be sure to include that. Thanks for the suggestion!

On the broader front, the City is in the process of a website redesign. Better things to come!

Good, thank you Matt Horn. Hopefully a retract article in the FLT. There are some creative, innovative thinkers in this community who care... SCF is one way to keep everyone contributing (If they choose), and for the citizens and government to work together.

Thank you for being candid and for truly hearing citizen concerns regarding the switch, and for being willing to explore other ways to address residents' concerns with SCF without leaving it.

I see a wonderful opportunity for the City. The City can announce the "return to SCF" as something that was done with input from residents. This event (the switch, then the pending switch back) can serve to bring more attention to SCF and hopefully encourage more people to get involved. The City's decision to switch to GenevaWorks may have been prompted by the desire to better serve residents, but the public response showed that more dialogue was needed...and it happened...right here on SCF!

Thanks again, to everyone, for engaging in this ongoing dialogue.

"City of Geneva Re-Introduces SeeClickFix"
http://genevanrc.org/city-of-geneva-re-introduces-seeclickfix/

Thanks for fixing this issue!

Just a reminder to update the 'Report a Problem' link on the GNRC website at http://genevanrc.org/

Thanks again!

All set!

Thank you!

Thanks for fixing this issue!

Thanks for fixing this issue!