Officials react to remote meeting extensionDate: 7/27/2022 WESTERN MASS. – Local municipal leaders and clerks will continue to have flexibility in the manner in which they conduct public meetings thanks the state’s recent decision to extend provisions that allow for remote and hybrid options.
On July 16, Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito, in the capacity of acting governor while Gov. Charlie Baker was on vacation in Las Vegas, signed a bill extending certain coronavirus pandemic policies, including the suspension of certain Open Meeting Law requirements that previously prohibited meetings without a quorum physically present.
The legislation does not place any remote requirements on municipalities; it merely extends the period during which boards and committees have the ability to decide whether to host in-person, remote or hybrid meetings through March 31, 2023. Posted meeting agendas must state the type of meeting so the public can easily discern how a meeting would be conducted.
The decision makes no other changes to the state’s Open Meeting Laws.
The policy was set to expire on July 15, but the state Senate passed an extension bill on July 5, followed by the state House of Representatives, which passed a similar version of the bill on July 7. The House bill, however, included a language that would have permanently required municipalities to provide remote access to most public meetings, effective April 1, 2023.
The mandate in the House’s bill was a point of contention for many local officials as well as the Massachusetts Municipal Association and was ultimately dropped from the final legislation passed by the House and Senate on July 14.
Speaking to Reminder Publishing prior to the final legislation, Amherst Town Manager Paul Bockelman said the House’s initial bill was “not good” and “sets us back two steps from where we are today” by essentially creating an unfunded mandate. He supported the idea of allowing municipalities to use their own discretion in selecting the model in which meetings take place.
“As you know well, the town of Amherst has several dozen committees – and more created every year – that would have to comply with this requirement,” he said. “The town’s IT Department would not be able to accommodate this level of demand without significant new staffing and outfitting additional meeting rooms. At present, we only have one room in Town Hall that is equipped to accommodate a hybrid meeting.”
Bockelman added that he fears a mandate would create a liability for communities like Amherst, opening them up to Open Meeting Law violations if they failed to meet the proposed requirements.
Hadley Town Administrator Carolyn Brennan said she supports permanently allowing remote meetings as an alternative, but opposes a mandate.
“It would be great to keep the meetings hybrid to maintain engagement, but to cover every volunteer and appointed board with the technical assistance would be cost prohibitive,” she said.
When asked if he thought remote meetings should be a permanent option in municipal government, Southampton Town Administrator Ed Gibson said he hopes so, but cautiously added that he hopes the hybrid option does not become a requirement.
“Once you get into that hybrid model, there are two pieces of the puzzle,” he said. “One is you have to be able to afford to purchase the technology to do it, and also once you get into that hybrid model, it requires more person hours to sustain that.”
Gibson said Southampton has one room in their Town Hall that accommodates a hybrid model, and they have used it on a couple of meetings. “But once you require all boards and committees to meet under those circumstances, then small towns who cannot afford the technology in more than one room or find the staffing … then it’s like, ‘Okay, we have two or three meetings on the same night,’” said Gibson. “We can’t afford to fit all of them in one room.”
Westhampton Administrative Assistant Doug Finn also said officials were “grateful” that the legislature ultimately determined to do away with the House’s proposed mandate while keeping hybrid meetings an option at their discretion.
With that said, overall, most local government figures extolled the virtues of remote participation and stressed that it remains a necessity at this point in the coronavirus pandemic.
“COVID-19 is still here, and we still have to deal with it,” said Gibson. “From a management perspective, I’m very happy that the governor’s office approved the extension.”
After conducting meetings remotely during the worst part of COVID-19, Southampton has been operating out of a mixture of hybrid/remote/in-person formula and working with E-Media to get important meetings like the Selectboard on YouTube.
“We have some boards and commissions that like or prefer to do the in-person, and we have some that like the flexibility of being able to do remote meetings,” said Gibson. “For just under a year, the [extension] gives us another tool in our toolbox to be able to work through all this.”
Gibson told Reminder Publishing that public participation varied with the remote and hybrid options available, but he still said that having these flexible options is “valuable.”
Finn said the town of Westhampton has already invested in the technology to offer hybrid-format meetings from multiple venues, including Town Hall and the Westhampton Library. He added that like elsewhere, community participation has increased with the remote option.
The increased community participation is a benefit without a doubt, according to Finn, however, many boards and committees were ready this past spring to return to meeting in-person as communication between members was far more efficient and effective.
“To that end, the hybrid meeting option is the best of both worlds: it allows for participation by folks who may not be able to be present for whatever reason, while still allowing members to meet in person if they choose,” Finn said. “Hybrid meetings require a certain technological acumen for success, which may pose a challenge to smaller boards and committees; however, its usefulness is clear, and I expect that we will continue to take advantage of the hybrid meeting option for some time to come.”
Easthampton has also recently been conducting their public meetings through a mixture of a hybrid/remote/in-person formula. Reminder Publishing reported back in the spring that the city began piloting a hybrid format.
According to Lindsi Mailler, the municipal clerk for the Mayor’s Office and License Commission, Easthampton is essentially back to the way meetings were conducted before COVID-19. Under this formula, each room has the capability to record the meeting, and then E-Media uploads the meeting to their YouTube channel and city website.
To allow the public to participate in meetings in-person or virtually, the city is also piloting a hybrid meeting option with selected multi-member bodies, including the City Council, Conservation Commission, Planning Board, School Committee, School Building Committee and Zoning Board of Appeals.
“We hope to have the hybrid model be a permanent extension, including all boards and committees in the future when we get our technology to that point,” said Mailler.
Since then, the city has maintained the hybrid/remote format, especially for their City Council, School Committee and Planning Board meetings.
“The extension well serves the public interest,” Easthampton Mayor Nicole LaChapelle told Reminder Publishing. “With the remote meeting option, Easthampton residents can access local government with fidelity as the city’s build out technology infrastructure. As we move away from the most intense part of the [coronavirus] pandemic, the public’s support for hybrid has not lessened but grown. Could there be a better time to bring down barriers preventing public participation? I think not.”
Northampton City Council President Jim Nash, meanwhile, said he and the Northampton City Council are big proponents of the hybrid/remote options for municipal meetings in the city.
“First and foremost, the level of participation by the public, the ability of people to be involved, has been expanded,” said Nash. “That’s very evident to us that that was an aspect we very much wanted to maintain.”
While some committees have conducted meetings through a hybrid mechanism, the majority of major meetings, like City Council, have remained remote in Northampton thanks to the help of Northampton Open Media and their YouTube page. The overall consensus, Nash said, is a hybrid format could work in the future.
“The other piece is, for the council we have now, if we did not have this expansion, at least three councilors would have challenges to being part of council,” said Nash. “The remote option has expanded who can consider being on council.”
Nash told Reminder Publishing that the city will most likely land on a hybrid format for meetings like City Council, eventually. However, he also added that the City Council will not consider meeting in a room solely in-person where the only way to have public input is through a podium.
“We’re not going back to that willingly,” said Nash. “We just see that this has been a really good thing for public dialogue.”
Northampton, Easthampton and Southampton all post their meeting times and mechanisms for meeting on their respective websites.
Amherst Director of Communications Brianna Sunryd said remote and hybrid meeting options have been well received and the town continues to be innovative in its approach to increasing transparency and participation.
“The town has seen exponential growth in meeting attendance and views of the meetings after the fact since pre-[coronavirus] pandemic times. We have also seen our board members increasingly diversify and have received interest in service from many community members looking to serve for the first time, in part due to the ease of being able to attend meetings from home,” she said. “We have worked hard to create new and alternative ways of engagement during this time, including a dedicated online public participation platform, Engage Amherst, and have been working with a research team at [the University of Massachusetts] Amherst to develop new in-meeting tools to increase participation, to name a few. We hope we are given the clearance to continue building on these innovative approaches to public participation going forward.”
Brennan said participation in Hadley was “definitely” higher with the advent of remote meetings and in some ways it made meetings run smoother on her end.
“It was much easier for residents to sign into a meeting instead of driving to an in-person meeting. It gave residents an opportunity to really see what takes place in the meetings and understanding how municipalities run,” she said, “The benefit was the ease of meeting, I can stay at my desk with all of the information easily accessible at my fingertips vs having to bring everything to a different building to meet. We can also share documents on the screen.”
She did note there were occasionally technical issues and the risk of “getting [Zoom] bombed by unidentified individuals who wanted to disrupt a meeting.”
Lydia Szych, Hatfield’s town clerk, commented that many committees will resume in-person meetings, which have advantages, but continue remote options. Remote meetings may have audio problems, frustrating those hoping to attend by Zoom, another reason Szych voiced a preference for in-person meetings.
“I like face to face,” Szych said. “There are good things about … being able to go back and forth and not have to worry about any technical difficulties.”
Amy Schrader, town clerk in the neighboring town of Whately, supported the extension of remote meetings, and commented that it’s a benefit for residents and town officials.
“It makes it very convenient for our boards and committees, and for anyone who still feels uncomfortable meeting in person,” Schrader said. “I think that’s really beneficial to the townspeople.”
The town of Sunderland’s Town Clerk Wendy Houle noted that committee chairs and department heads are good about hosting meetings outside if attendees are nervous indoors. Houle also said a big difference was the change in Town Meeting dates that was possible during the coronavirus pandemic.
Town Meeting in 2020 was conducted on June 6, rather than the last Friday in May, as required by the town’s bylaws. Town Meeting in 2021 and this year were on the usual date.
“It gives a convenience for some people who don’t feel comfortable going out,” Houle said. “I have to say, our boards and committees are doing a great job of accommodating folks too … They do a pretty good job of seeing the need.”
In Holyoke, Mayor Joshua Garcia applauded the extension, stating it has given a boost to citizen participation in local government. He added the remote/hybrid option is a rare instance where there are no cons – only pros.
“The hybrid open meeting law, one of the few positives to emerge from the [coronavirus] pandemic, has given a huge boost to citizen participation in local government. It is often difficult for citizens – along with members of municipal boards and commissions – to be physically present for meetings,” Garcia said. “Long hours at work, winter weather, commutes and child care, among other obligations, make it hard for conscientious residents and city officials to travel to City Hall for meetings and hearings. To be able to participate from home or office has been a boon to the direct democracy that is the heart of New England municipal government.”
Garcia added that the city is exploring the possibility of making the open meeting hybrid option permanent.
Holyoke City Clerk Brenna Murphy McGee said she thought it was a positive move as the hybrid option is helpful for residents who want to be involved and can’t make it down to City Hall. She added it provides a great flexibility for all parties involved and an important tool for department heads who are sometimes asked to come to City Council meetings but are far down on the agenda.
“Some of them are coming down here on a Monday or Tuesday night and are way down on the agenda and aren’t being called until 10 o’clock at night. I think that with the opportunity to stay home and keep their camera off until their needed is a pretty important aspect of keeping government running sufficiently,” said McGee.
McGee added the majority of public comment recently has been mostly from residents over Zoom and that she thinks the hybrid option is something that could be here to stay in Holyoke.
South Hadley Selectboard Chair Jeff Cyr said he did not believe the extension should have occurred. Cyr cited that people are not staying home anymore, are traveling and going out closer to a pre-pandemic status quo at this point.
“I believe it should be up to the individual communities to adopt a remote meeting policy,” Cyr said.
Cyr did add that the town saw good participation from the public with remote meetings when there would be an important agenda item or a pressing issue within the community.
In Granby, the Board of Health discussed the extension during their July 19 meeting where they stated they are an active advocate for fully remote meetings. Back on June 6, the Board of Health sent a letter to state Sen. Eric Lesser at the state house expressing concerns about eliminating the hybrid open meeting law option.
“The people of Massachusetts are about to lose an extremely powerful provision of the modifications to the Open Meeting Law, the ability to meet remotely. Our board is requesting that you lead and support the effort to allow remote meetings to continue,” the board said in the letter.
The three-member board expressed strong support of allowing remote meetings in the letter and encouraged the state to support allowing the function to continue. Some of the reasons listed to continue the hybrid/remote option in the letter were the fact that COVID-19 was still active, recordings of meetings provide documentation and public access, and the fact that the remote option has increased their public participation.
|
