Zooming Out: Selectboard Meetings Going Fully Online

Count me among those concerned about the recent terse announcement that the Selectboard has ended in-person meetings in favor of attendance by Board members only via Zoom.

The listserv post of May 9 says in full:

Please be advised that, until further notice, all Selectboard meetings will be conducted via Zoom (remotely).

Since the end of the Covid crisis, the Selectboard has used a hybrid meeting approach, combining in person attendance with participation via Zoom. However, all Board members generally attended these hybrid meetings in person.

The situation changed dramatically following the March organizational meeting of the Selectboard. Since then, only Chair Pam Smith and member Priscilla Vincent have regularly attended meetings in person. While in-person public attendance may be sparse, it seems reasonable to expect elected representatives to demonstrate their commitment by attending in person, especially given that regular meetings occur just twice a month. Such dedication not only sets an example of civic responsibility but also promotes transparency and engagement, as detailed below.

Of course, there may be instances where an individual member cannot attend a meeting. But the regular physical absence of the same three members is noticeable.  Perhaps lingering tensions remain after the election of the current chair by a 3-2 vote. Even via Zoom, a strain between the former and current chair is evident. Pushing meetings fully online risks worsening the disconnect among Board members, to the public’s detriment.

In addition, the Open Meeting Law requires a physical location for a meeting, with a Selectboard member or designee present, although this provision is suspended until July 1, 2024. [Note: The original version of this post did not indicate the suspension.].

May 8 Selectboard meeting

The issue of ending in-person meetings was briefly discussed at the May 8 Selectboard meeting. The conversation lasted less than 90 seconds, from 6:44 to 7:58 on the YouTube video recording. It was not an agenda item and there was no vote. Selectboard member Mary Layton said family life issues prevented her attending in person. Selectboard member Vincent commented “I hate Zoom.”

The draft meeting minutes make no mention of the topic.

Holding an open, noticed discussion to weigh the pros and cons of virtual vs. in-person meetings would have been a better approach.

Flying the flag

Hybrid meetings are the way to go. However, the expectation should be that the Town Manager and all members of the Selectboard are physically present at the twice monthly regular meetings, absent extenuating circumstances. Maybe each Selectboard member should publicly explain why the Selectboard and the Town are well-served by that member showing up only virtually

Here’s my pitch why all members of the Board should strive for in-person attendance at regular meetings.

Effective Communication:

In-person meetings allow for clearer communications as Selectboard members can see and hear each other directly. Non-verbal cues are difficult to pick up over video.

Enhanced Engagement:

Meeting face-to-face fosters a sense of collective responsibility and commitment among Board members. Being physically present in the same space re-enforces the sense of common purpose.

Improved Focus and Attention:

Virtual meetings can feel impersonal and monotonous, lacking the energy and engagement of a shared physical space. It’s easier for attendees to get distracted or zone out.

Trust and Transparency:

Meeting in person demonstrates a commitment to transparency, accessibility, and accountability. It sends the message that board members are willing to be physically present and accessible to the community they serve. Residents and business owners deserve the opportunity to meet face-to-face with the entire Selectboard.

Relationship Building:

In-person meetings create better opportunities for networking and relationship building among all stakeholders. Informal interactions before, during, and after meetings allow members, public officials, and residents to make personal connections, build rapport, and cultivate trust.

Technical Reliability:

Meeting in person eliminates the technical challenges associated with virtual meetings, such as internet connectivity issues and audio/video glitches. Not every resident is comfortable or capable with technology.

Open Meeting Law implications (after July 1)

The Open Meeting Law allows public bodies to meet electronically. However, after July 1, there needs to be physical location for the public to attend. In addition, a least one member of the body or its designee is required to be physically present at that location.

After the Covid-era suspension ends on July 1, then 1 V.S.A §312 (a)(2)(D) will return to force. It says:

If a quorum or more of the members of a public body attend a meeting without being physically present at a designated meeting location, the agenda required under subsection (d) of this section shall designate at least one physical location where a member of the public can attend and participate in the meeting. At least one member of the public body, or at least one staff or designee of the public body, shall be physically present at each designated meeting location.

https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/section/01/005/00312

* * *

In light of comments below, this post was corrected to reflect the suspension of the physical location requirement of the OML until July 1.

Contact me at norwichobserver[at]gmail.com

May is ALS Awareness Month.