Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opengov Accessibility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community police board raises accessibility concerns about OpenGov portal, asks staff to return with answers
Summary
Members of the Ithaca Community Police Board pressed city staff about accessibility and record-tracking problems with the city’s OpenGov portal and asked that the staff member responsible return next month to explain case numbering, notifications and account requirements.
Members of the Ithaca Community Police Board on May 28 pressed city staff about the usability and tracking of the city’s OpenGov portal, saying the platform may deter people with low digital literacy from filing complaints or applications.
Board members told staff the online complaint and appointment application process requires account creation and several clicks, and that at least one reappointment notice went to the wrong email address. The board agreed to invite the staff member who handles the portal to the June meeting for a focused discussion about notifications, case numbering and whether the portal can be configured to accept submissions without account creation.
The board described two tracking problems: the public complaint numbering sequence showed entries labeled 1 and 4 while 2 and 3 were missing, and a member said a complaint filed by a colleague appeared only after being located manually. Board members asked staff for clarification about how case numbers are assigned and where submission records are routed.
The board asked the city to explain whether OpenGov can be adjusted to make forms easier to use on phones and to provide alternatives (paper or simplified web forms) for people without computer access. A board member said the portal feels “more invasive than needs to be” for people filing sensitive complaints and suggested a generic online form (for example, a Qualtrics-style form) or removing the requirement to create an OpenGov account.
City staff attendance was inconsistent at the meeting: the board noted the staff contact responsible for OpenGov, identified in the session as Alan, was not present and directed staff to place him on the June agenda so members can ask technical and policy questions directly.
Where the Common Council has pushed for OpenGov use for transparency and recruitment, the board said that requirement creates a tradeoff between transparency tools and access for residents with limited digital skills. The board asked staff to provide (1) a clear description of how applications and complaints move through the portal to the mayor or council, (2) whether paper or lobby forms remain in active use at the police station, and (3) proposed remedies to split tracking benefits from mandatory account creation.
The board did not adopt policy changes at the meeting; members asked staff to return next month with technical details and to explain the discrepancy in numbering and notification practice so the board can recommend changes if needed.
