REPORT OF THE SEG Communications Committee

January 11, 2000

The SEG Communications Committee met at 9:00 AM, January 5, 2000, at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Office, Parkway Business Center, Chatham Parkway, Savannah, GA. The primary purpose of the meeting was to review the earlier recommendation (10-A from the October 1, 1999 committee report) regarding use of the SEG web site for distribution of project-related information contributed by individual members, agencies, or organizations. Advance notice was posted on the SEG web site and committee members were notified by email. Additionally, the full SEG membership was notified by email and invited to participate.

The committee met from approximately 9:05am - 1:15pm, with the following individuals present for the entire meeting: John Robinette (USF&W), Doug Plachy (Corps of Engineers), Judy Jennings (Sierra Club), Patty McIntosh (The Georgia Conservancy), and Ben Brewton (Coastal Environmental Organization). Present for portions of the meeting were: Justin Yandell (Coastal Environmental Organization) 9:30am - 1:15pm, Sam Drake (USF&W) 11:00am - 1:15pm, Patricia Reese (Georgia Ports Authority) 9:05am - 10:15am, and David Schaller (Georgia Ports Authority) 9:05am - 9:50am.

-----------------------------------------------

The committee discussed the issues at hand and developed the following recommendations, which were unanimously agreed to by all present at the time of each decision:

(please note that - as used in this report - the term "SEG members" is intended to mean all SEG participants…individuals, agencies, organizations, corporations, etc.)

1. RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PREPARATION OF SEG AGENDA

  1. The previously recommended and adopted agenda format should be amended to include a permanent slot near the end of each meeting's agenda to "Discuss next meeting's agenda".
  2. The SEG should establish a "steering committee" that would meet immediately after each SEG meeting to prioritize and prepare a draft agenda that could be posted immediately. The Communications Committee suggests that the structure of the proposed steering committee would be an appropriate topic for consideration by the Operating Guidelines Committee. (The steering committee may also be needed for additional responsibilities as noted later in this report.)

2. REVIEW OF PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION 10-A ABOUT WEB SITE

    1. Alternatives discussed
      1. Prior to the meeting, committee members were asked to submit a descriptive overview of their recommended alternatives to the web site method; however, no suggestions were submitted.
      2. The use of a "listserve" for distribution of information by email was discussed at the meeting, but was not selected, in part due to concerns about the receipt of large or frequent emails that had been expressed by many SEG and committee members.
      3. Prior to the meeting, Larry Keegan researched a free internet "group" service and discussed this by telephone with Ben Brewton, who described this for the committee. The committee decided that this option might be useful for a portion of the stated communication needs.
    2. Demonstration of alternatives

An opportunity was provided for demonstration of alternatives to use of the SEG website; however, there were no presentations.

3. REVISIONS TO RECOMMENDATION 10-A REGARDING WEB SITE USE

    1. The committee reaffirmed the previously-stated need for use of the web site for distribution and posting of background materials and other relevant information. Potential benefits include: better prepared meeting participants, more efficient use of meeting time, sharing of multiple viewpoints, easy access to important reports and correspondence, etc.
    2. The committee considered the concerns that had been previously raised by Georgia Ports Authority and others regarding possible inappropriate use of the web site or misinterpretation of materials posted, and a "compromise" approach was developed with the following elements:
      1. An area should be provided on the "official" SEG website for information related to any topic that has been placed on the agenda for an upcoming or past SEG meeting. Such materials should be automatically posted when submitted by an SEG member.
      2. An area should be provided for posting of important project-related reports, correspondence, and other information arising between meetings (such as the COE Chief's Report) when submitted or requested by an SEG member. (SEG member would be someone who had attended at least one meeting.) Submissions for this area would be "screened" by the steering committee referenced in Item 1-B prior to posting, and would not be posted if a committee member objected, until and unless later approved by the full SEG.
      3. The areas described in items "i" and "ii" would be subject to the following guidelines:
          1. In some cases, it may only be necessary to post a hyperlink to a URL where the referenced material is already published.
          2. Disclaimers which accurately describe the "non-official" nature of the links or information posted should be included at appropriate locations on the web site.
          3. Some form of registration should be required for those submitting information for posting. (Method of "registration" and definition of "member" should be decided by the full SEG - one possibility might be a requirement that the submitter had physically attended at least one SEG meeting.)
          4. Members would be requested to submit information in electronic form; however, the SEG webmaster would handle conversion of printed documents if needed.
          5. These areas of the web site would be used for the posting and exchange of informational materials, and would not be used as "chat" areas.
      4. An additional web site area should be set up independent of the SEG web site for the purpose of posting information not falling into the categories specified in "i" and "ii" above. The committee recommends that the free group service noted in Item 2-A-iii be evaluated on a trial basis to determine if it will be effective in meeting this need.
          1. The group site would be open to anyone for viewing, but registration would be required for submission, as in iii-c.
          2. The site would be automated except for initial setup, and users would handle their own document preparation and uploading.
          3. The site would not be used as a "chat" area (refer to iii-e).

4. RECOMMENDATION FOR MEMBER CONTACT LIST ON SEG WEB SITE

The committee recommends that a member list be maintained on the web site for SEG participants. At the option of each member, the listing would include name, organization, primary areas of SEG-related interest, contact information, and an email address if they wish to receive harbor-related email from others.