The council is thinking about broadcasting their meetings on the Internet at a startup cost of about $12,000 and a monthly fee of $855 to the company to supply the software and hardware and other services. This, of course, is only the beginning. With computer equipment there always are ongoing expenses, at least that's been our experience.

To begin with, we don't see this added service as competition to The Missourian, any more than we view cablecasting the council meetings.

The argument for this added service to citizens is that it brings more transparency to government. It does make more transparency available, but experience in other cities with this service does not have impressive numbers of viewers.

Is there an issue of transparency in Washington city government? We are not aware of a problem. The fact is the present administration has a record of being very open to the public. We have not heard a single complaint about a lack of transparency at city hall. We also have not heard a request for this service from a single citizen. We have an administration that has been accountable.

It is somewhat like when the city had tapes of council meetings available for citizens. It was rare when a citizen requested a tape.

Another issue is how many people with computers will be able to access the webcast of meetings. Only computers with high-speed Internet service will be able to stream the video. Dial-up Internet connections are too slow to provide a clean viewing of the video.

Companies selling this product use "this is the wave of the future" approach. It reminds us of the sales pitch of "a paperless society" because everybody will view everything on a screen. The experience at The Missourian, and at other companies, we've been told, is that in this computer age we use more paper now than ever before. We make copies of what we receive because it's quicker to read and refer to than use of the computer for many people.

A recent study revealed that it takes 30 percent longer to read copy on a computer screen than on paper. The same study reported that retention of what is read on a screen is 30 percent less than reading what is on paper.

The important thing to remember in this issue is that the startup costs are only the beginning. There will be software upgrades that are costly and there always are maintenance costs. Hardware usually isn't repaired these days-too costly. You junk the hardware and buy new computers. It's an ongoing expense.

It is sad to say but the general public isn't that interested in much of what goes on in a council meeting. The public gets concerned and excited when it's an issue that is close to them, such as a Camp Street bridge project. Then they attend council meetings. Issues like taxes and questionable spending do get attention generally. The routine draws little interest.

The little added transparency through the Internet isn't going to change attitudes about interest in government and what it's doing. As we said, we already have transparency in city government, and we haven't observed a lack of accountability. City administrations do vary in transparency and accountability. The present administration deserves good grades in both.

We don't think webcasting is necessary and we know there will be ongoing expenses after startup costs.