Petition 8 - Citizen Comment Broadcast Change.pdf

ITIZEN
ETITION
pursuant to Phoenix City Charter, Chapter IV, Sec. 22, requests the City Council to:
PROVIDE ANSWERS AND
RECORDS REGARDING THE
FEBRUARY 2025 CITIZEN
COMMENT BROADCAST CHANGE
ress a
Jerry Van Gasse
4610 E Via Estrella
Ls
Phoenix, AZ 85028 aa
(602) 622-3515 “Se
board@goodgoat net

ONTENTS
Summary
oettioner’s case: the problem, what the Proposed Measure
uld the
adopt it, and J supporting facts.
RY WOUnGH,
aSGre
a8 Council is ask '
SA 021-15 Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT - goodgoat net Page 2 of 9

SUMMARY
The Problem
Beginning with the February 5, 2025 Formal City Council Meeting, the public
broadcast of Citizen Comments changed: in place of the live camera view of the
resident speaking, the Council dais, and the chamber, the outgoing broadcast
carried a full-frame caption display. Public comment on numbered agenda items, in
the same meetings, kept its live camera view.
No public explanation of that change has been identified. No authorizing record has
been identified. No one has been identified as having decided it, and the City has
not said whether anyone was assigned to explain it.
The result is that for the one part of a Formal Meeting reserved for residents to
address their Council, a remote viewer cannot see the resident, cannot see the dais,
and cannot tell whether the Council is still in the room. Rule 11 says citizen
comments “will be televised as part of the formal meeting” (Fact 1). Whether a
caption-only image satisfies that requirement is a question the City has never
answered on the record.
This petition does not ask the Council to decide that question. It asks the Council to
direct that the questions be answered and the existing records produced, so that the
record exists.
What the Proposed Measure Does
Direct the City Manager to provide attributable written answers to thirteen questions
about the February 2025 change that replaced the live camera view of the resident
speaker, the Council dais, and the chamber during Citizen Comments with a full-frame
caption display, to produce the existing records in twelve identified categories, and to
place the complete response in the public legislative file for this petition.
ms

SUPMPARY
Why the Council Should Adopt it
The Council cannot supervise what it has not been told.
The change altered how the public sees its own Council. If the Council did not authorize it,
the Council is entitled to know who did.
» The questions ask for facts the City already holds.
Who authorized the change, on what date, through what instruction, and for what purpose
are matters of existing record or existing knowledge. None of this requires study or new
work product.
The records are identified, bounded, and ordinary.
Twelve categories, running from January 1, 2025 through the date of the response:
authorizations, communications, analyses, production scripts, configuration logs, contracts.
production logs, and the written policies governing camera treatment. If a category has no
responsive record, saying so is a complete answer.
Answers and records are not substitutes for each other.
The measure says so expressly. An answer does not excuse producing a record, and
producing a record does not excuse answering the question.
This is a direction to staff, not a records request.
The measure states that it is a request for Council approval and direction of a staff project
and is not submitted as a public-records request. It leaves every public-records right the
petitioner has exactly where it was.
The Facts
1. Phoenix City Code § 2-60, Rule 11 provides for a citizen comment period at formal meetings,
limits each speaker to three minutes, and provides that the comments “will be televised as
part of the formal ;
meeting” ‘Tie Rube does not define’ ‘eledisen.”
Source: Phoenix Ci 8 . ,
RO raise 1 Emenee hss citizen canner period ona quorum ei the Council being present.
i °
3. Beginning with the ——— 5, 2025 Formal City Council Meeting, the City’s outgoing
broadcast of the Citizen Comments portion presented a full-frame caption display in place of
the live camera image of the recognized speaker, the Council dais, and the chamber, while
public comment on numbered agenda items in the same meetings retained the live camera
image.
3, AU
4. On February 19, 2025, the Mayor announced the addition of two caption screens inside the
Council chambers. That announcement concerned displays within the chambers; no City
statement has been identified that explains the separate change to the outgoing public
broadcast.
o ngs LS aby At Dingess
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-18

SUMMARY
S. Phoenix City Charter, Chapter !V, Section 22 provides that any citizen may appear before the
Council at any regular meeting and present a written petition, and that such petition “shall be
acted upon by the Council in the regular course of business, within fifteen (15) days.”
BHA Natt wit EV ON 4.8.
6. Phoenix City Charter, Chapter IV, Section 8 provides that the Council “shall act only by
resolution, ordinance, franchise, or formal recorded action,” and Section 9 provides that for
other than unanimous votes the ayes and nays shall be taken and entered upon the journal of
the proceedings of the Council.

REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Petitioner Jerry Van Gasse
Address 4610 E Via Estrella
Phoenix, AZ 85028
Phone (602) 622-3515
Email board@goodgoat.net
Date presented October 21, 2026
Requested Legal Action
For the City of Phoenix Council to vote on the Proposed Measure exactly as
written.
Summary of Proposed Measure
Direct the City Manager to provide attributable written answers to thirteen questions about the
February 2025 change that replaced the live camera view of the resident speaker, the Council
dais, and the chamber during Citizen Comments with a full-frame caption display, to produce the
existing records in tweive identified categories, and to place the complete response in the public
legislative file for this petition.
Council Action Required
Phoenix City Charter, Chapter lV, Section 22 provides that a written petition presented to the
Council at a regular meeting shall be acted upon by the Council in the regular course of
business, within fifteen (15) days. Section 8 provides that the Council shall act only by
resolution, ordinance, franchise, or formal recorded action. The Proposed Measure is a
formal recorded action.
Acting upon this petition requires that vote, as its own Formal Agenda item, with this Request
and the Proposed Measure attached. Any change in the substance of the Proposed Measure, in
whole or in part, makes it a different measure from the one proposed by the petitioner, and a
vote on it is not action on this petition. Referral, a staff report, a General Information Packet
entry, continuation, answers to some or all questions, production of some or all requested
records, or a consolidated vote also does not act upon this petition.
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-15 - Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT goodgoat net Page 6 of 9

icicles heiacelol
Answers and Records Concerning the February 2025 Citizen Comment Broadcast Change (Formal
Action)
SECTION 1. Direction and Deadline
The City Council directs the City Manager to provide the attributable written answers and existing
records specified below. The complete response shall be placed in the public legislative file for Citizen
Petition JV-20261021-15 no later than ten business days after the Council adopts this Proposed Measure.
This is a request for Council approval and direction of a staff project; it is not submitted as a public-
records request.
SECTION 2. Required Written Answers
The City Manager shall assign each question to the official or employee with direct knowledge or
responsibility. Each answer shall identify the person answering, that person’s title and department, the
records relied upon, and any material fact the City could not determine. Each numbered question shall be
answered separately and completely.
1. Who authorized the change, first observed during the February 5, 2025 Formal City Council
Meeting, that replaced the camera view of the resident speaker, Council dais, and chamber during
Citizen Comments with a full-frame caption display?
2. On what date was the change authorized, and through what oral direction, written instruction,
work order, service ticket, production decision, contract action, or other mechanism?
3. Who recommended, designed, approved, configured, tested, and implemented the change?
Identify each person, office, department, contractor, and vendor and describe each one’s role.
What purpose or purposes was the broadcast change intended to serve?
5. Why was the changed visual treatment applied to general Citizen Comments but not to public
comment on numbered agenda items during the same Formal City Council Meetings?
6. Was the Mayor’s February 19, 2025 announcement concerning two caption screens inside the
Council chambers intended to explain the separate change to the outgoing public broadcast? If so,
identify the portion of the announcement and the supporting record. If not, state whether any
person or office was assigned responsibility for publicly explaining the broadcast change; if so,
identify that person or office and state whether an explanation was provided.
7. Did the City or any contractor prepare or rely upon an accessibility, legal, communications,
technical, operational, security, privacy, or financial analysis concerning the broadcast change?
For each analysis, identify its author, date, form, principal conclusion, and current custodian. State
expressly if none exists.
8. Does the City contend that a full-frame caption display carrying meeting audio, but no live image
of the speaker, Council dais, or chamber, satisfies Rule 11’s requirement that Citizen Comments
“will be televised as part of the formal meeting”? If so, provide the City’s complete basis for that
position, including each authority and record relied upon.
9. Before and after the February 2025 change, were English and Spanish captions available as
selectable tracks, overlays, or another feature throughout the Formal City Council Meeting?
Identify the available caption functions and their effective dates.

PROPOSED MEASURE
10. Can the City’s existing production system display the recognized speaker, the full Council dais,
and English and Spanish captions simultaneously through split-screen presentation, caption
overlays, or another method? If the answer is no, identify the specific technical limitation and the
records establishing it.
11. At what point during each affected meeting does the live camera image resume after Citizen
Comments? Identify any affected meeting in which the live camera image did not resume before
adjournment.
12. What written policy, procedure, production specification, or instruction presently governs camera
selection and visual treatment during Citizen Comments? Who presently has authority to approve
or change that treatment?
13. What information in the current broadcast permits a remote viewer to determine whether the
quorum required by Rule 11 remains present during Citizen Comments?
If the City cannot answer a question from existing information, it shall state that expressly, identify the
information needed to answer, identify the person or entity believed to possess it, and state the steps taken
to obtain it.
SECTION 3. Existing Records to Be Produced
The City Manager shall place publicly releasable copies of the following existing records in the
legislative file. Unless a category states otherwise, the relevant period is January 1, 2025 through the date
of the City’s response.
1. Every authorization, directive, instruction, memorandum, approval, work order, service ticket,
change request, production decision, or similar record concerning replacement of the live camera
image during Citizen Comments with a caption display.
N Communications concerning whether, why, when, or how the visual treatment of Citizen
Comments should differ from public comment on numbered agenda items.
3. Accessibility, legal, communications, technical, operational, security, privacy, and financial
analyses concerning the broadcast change or the continued use of the caption-only image during
Citizen Comments.
4, Production scripts, run-of-show documents, control-room instructions, camera instructions,
switching instructions, captioning instructions, technical specifications, diagrams, and operating
procedures governing the live and archived visual treatment of Citizen Comments.
5. Configuration records, change logs, testing records, quality-assurance records, screenshots,
incident records, and corrective-action records concerning implementation or modification of the
broadcast change.
6. Contracts, amendments, task orders, statements of work, invoices, purchase orders, vendor
instructions, and vendor communications concerning the in-chamber caption screens, caption
software, meeting broadcast production, or the changed visual treatment of Citizen Comments.
7. Production logs, operator notes, incident reports, and preserved broadcast outputs for the Citizen
Comments portions of the December 18, 2024; February 5, 2025; February 19, 2025; and March
5, 2025 Formal City Council Meetings.
8. Records identifying each City employee, office, department, contractor, and vendor responsible
for authorizing, supervising, producing, monitoring, or changing the live and archived video
presentation of Formal City Council Meetings.
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-15 Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT - goodgoat net Page 8 of 9

PROPOSED MEASURE
Each version of the written policy, procedure, specification, or instruction governing the visual
treatment of Citizen Comments that was effective at any time during the stated period.
10. Records analyzing or stating whether a caption-only image satisfies Phoenix City Code § 2-60,
Rule 11.
11. Records identifying when the live camera image resumed following Citizen Comments in each
affected meeting and any record documenting a decision not to resume it before adjournment.
12, Records showing the caption functions available throughout Formal City Council Meetings,
including selectable English and Spanish tracks, overlays, split-screen functions, and the dates
each function became available.
SECTION 4. Response Standards
1: Produce existing records in their native electronic format when reasonably available, together with
a readable public copy.
Preserve and produce record metadata sufficient to identify the sender or author, recipients, date,
time, subject or title, file type, and custodian.
If no responsive record exists for a numbered category, state that expressly for that category and
identify the custodians, systems, locations, and search terms examined.
If any record or portion is withheld or redacted, identify the record by date, author, recipients,
subject or description, custodian, and the specific legal authority asserted for each withholding or
redaction.
on Produce all reasonably segregable nonexempt portions of a record.
An answer does not substitute for producing a responsive record. Production of a record does not
substitute for answering the corresponding question.
fori dle iz Q