Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Operations Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board considers Diligent (BoardDocs) adoption, remote participation options and streaming; finance committee to review purchase
Summary
Board members discussed purchasing Diligent (formerly BoardDocs) to manage agendas and documents, considered alternatives for remote participation and streaming, and asked the finance committee to examine a transfer to fund the platform.
Board members discussed adopting the Diligent (formerly BoardDocs) meeting-management platform during the Sept. 9 meeting and asked the finance committee to review the purchase and recommended funding transfer.
Superintendent-level staff described two pricing options provided by the vendor: a community/meeting package and a full platform. The vendor’s current special offer quoted $5,400 for the community meeting package and $10,200 for the full package; an earlier price cited in internal materials had been $12,000. Staff said the district’s business office believes the cost is “completely doable within savings we’ve had in other areas.”
Staff outlined an 8–10 week implementation and training period and said the platform would streamline packet preparation and public access to board materials. Board members asked several operational questions: whether archived materials could be migrated into the platform, whether exportable Excel data remains available, and whether messaging or other features should be disabled for FOIA considerations. Staff said vendors could confirm those details and that a recommended transfer to fund the purchase would come to the finance committee for review. The superintendent suggested the finance committee consider the $10,200 full-package option; the board agreed to have finance review and report back at the next meeting.
Separately, members discussed remote participation and public comment technology. One board member noted that Zoom “webinar” or similar products cannot fully prevent disruptive external participants if the public can join directly; staff said districts commonly stream meetings to YouTube for public viewing while retaining a separate platform (Zoom or Teams) for remote participation by board members. IT staff said switching away from Zoom could yield subscription savings (staff estimated removing Zoom would save about $5,400 annually) and that Microsoft Teams could be used for board-member remote participation because the district already pays for it. The district’s IT representative noted the new license cost was modest and that shifting platforms could save several hundred dollars annually but warned that on-site tech support and per-meeting support costs remain.
No formal purchase vote occurred at the Sept. 9 meeting; the board asked the finance committee to review the options, confirm migration and FOIA details with the vendor and bring a recommendation back. Staff offered to recruit two board volunteers to “test drive” the platform during the committee review.
