Council's Web watcher says it's hard to hear

I received an e-mail that will be distributed to City Council members at an upcoming meeting where the writer, who did not give their name, is annoyed that council members do not speak into the microphones during each meeting. With no audio, the e-mailer writes that they are left guessing what is being discussed at these meetings.

Here are some comments the writer makes:

“My complaint is the audio from these meetings. First some sit so far back in their chairs from the mic (sic) or don’t turn it on at the public is unable to understand and follow the broadcast.”

The writer continues that council members should be educated about the microphones and that city staff and the public should be told to speak into the center microphone before addressing the council.

“I know a better job can be done to control the audio from these meetings,” the e-mail continues. “It only takes a little effort and compassion to get the job done.”

Considering there are on average about one or two members of the public attending council meetings, I’m assuming there is an audience on the web that follows along. What you do think of the audio? Are council members doing what they can to make sure there is an accurate and high-quality record of each meeting?

The city pays Steve Weed Productions $150 per session. Based on the writer’s complaints, is the product currently worth the money?