Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Technology topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fremont County to trial livestreaming using existing Zoom setup with added security
Summary
Commissioners agreed to begin livestreaming meetings using the county’s current Zoom meeting product with waiting-room controls, unique meeting IDs and YouTube viewing, and to reassess whether a paid Zoom webinar is needed later.
Fremont County commissioners agreed Tuesday to begin livestreaming meetings using the county’s current Zoom meeting product with added security measures and to run a trial the following week.
County staff told commissioners the existing setup can send a public feed to YouTube for viewing while controlling who participates through Zoom waiting rooms, unique meeting links and passcodes. Staff advised that the only people who can send chat or verbal comments during the live meeting are those admitted as Zoom participants; YouTube viewers watch the public stream but cannot feed chat back into the meeting.
The discussion centered on balancing public access with security and staff capacity. Julie (budget officer) and staff described a practice session that showed bandwidth and equipment were adequate. Staff estimated the county’s present Zoom subscription costs “just under $50” per year and said upgrading to a Zoom webinar (which offers more moderator controls and panelist/presenter tools) would increase annual cost to about $700. Staff also noted a potential personnel cost if the county needs a dedicated meeting operator rather than relying on existing staff who currently perform multiple duties.
County staff recommended starting with the existing meeting product, implementing secure settings (unique meeting IDs, a waiting room and passcodes), and using a gatekeeper to admit scheduled participants. Staff said attorneys have prepared a template of settings. The board directed staff to run the livestream under that configuration at the next meeting, monitor how many participants register, and return with any recommended changes if the trial shows a need to move to a webinar product.
Staff emphasized operational limits commissioners should expect: if the board pauses for a break or enters an executive session midmeeting, the streamed feed can be paused but will show a blank YouTube stream during the break; microphones and video must be manually cut and restarted. Commissioners were warned that live broadcasting requires attention to hot microphones during breaks and that livestreaming may change how the board handles pauses and informal conversations.
What commissioners said: Commissioner Jones and others said they prefer live access and the ability for absent commissioners to join remotely when needed. One commissioner noted concerns about members of the public objecting to being recorded; staff said the county could require registration for people who want to participate live while leaving the YouTube stream as a passive viewing channel. Staff also noted that comments posted to the YouTube stream after a meeting are visible to the county but do not feed back into the live Zoom session.
The board did not take a recorded vote. Commissioners directed staff to implement the described waiting-room and link-security settings, use attorneys’ templates, and trial the approach at the next meeting; staff will report back if staffing or technical needs make a webinar or paid upgrade necessary.
