My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-26-2012 Council Agenda
>
City Council Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
09-26-2012 Council Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/25/2012 12:36:33 PM
Creation date
9/25/2012 12:00:54 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
196
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
an issue with which account would be used to install the software. The City could <br />reimburse the Council Members after they use their own account to install the <br />applications. <br />Ms. Grider stated that Council Members do not have to take the iPad purchased <br />by the City. <br />Council Member Burt asked if Mr. Dino's explanation of the process would fall <br />under Option B. <br />Ms. Crider stated it was possible to morph Options A and B to achieve the <br />greatest goal. She clarified at the present time the City offered to provide the <br />Council with cellular phones and service although a number of Council chose to <br />supply their own phone and service; the same option would apply to the iPad. <br />Council Member Burt stated Staff and the Committee were in agreement on the <br />intent and asked what the correct wording would be to reflect that intent in the <br />Motion. <br />Council Member Klein asked if a Council Member wanted to use the iPad for other <br />purposes, was there anything in the City policies to prevent that from being <br />done. <br />Ms. Grider stated if it was a City issued phone or iPad, per this policy, it could not <br />be used for personal uses. <br />Council Member Klein stated it was not the same thing as buying applications and <br />asked how this was enforced or if it should be. <br />Mr. Keene stated that the policy statement intention was that it was City <br />property so it was just used for City purposes and there was not necessarily <br />enforcement. He stated the intention of the rule was constraining and there was <br />not necessarily added cost to run a personal application. There was the cost to <br />purchase the hardware and the software so there was no marginal cost increase <br />to running a personal application unless there were issues of maintenance on the <br />Staff for uploading or changing things. He stated that by having his own <br />personal cellular phone for City use there was no cost to the City but added <br />value, and the benefit to him was not having to deal with the policies. He stated <br />if there was a stipend that could be provided, which would be taxable, but an <br />amount that could supplement the cost. <br />Council Member Klein stated he thought the cellular policy indicated that the <br />FILENAME 11 <br />41 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.