Pittsburgh board debates making public hearing process permanently hybrid, committee to draft formal policy

Director Walker raised Policy 1,001 during the Jan. 6, 2025 policy workshop and opened a public discussion about whether the district’s monthly public hearing should include a virtual option, written testimony accommodations, and clearer instructions for how the public signs up to speak.

Walker said the district had reverted to a pre‑COVID public-hearing format that is strictly in person and that some community members and directors had urged consideration of a hybrid approach. "I wanted to bring this up for discussion tonight for a couple of reasons," Walker said, noting concerns from constituents about access. The policy currently lists a monthly public hearing that occurs between agenda review and the legislative meeting but leaves much procedural detail to interpretation.

Directors across the board voiced support for greater accommodation and clearer, consistent instructions. Director Silk said written testimony and posting of submitted materials on the website are important accommodations and called written submission itself "a form of accommodation." Director Barker said hybrid options help constituents who cannot travel in person, including caregivers and people with mobility issues. Several directors also requested clearer website navigation and a short-term shortcut to policy documents while the committee updates the site.

Board members discussed implementation details raised in the meeting: whether to accept written testimony and require submitters to provide copies; whether to permit remote testimony by submitting a form or checking a box; whether to order speakers (in-person first, virtual first, or grouped by topic) to reduce technical disruptions; and whether the policy committee should draft a detailed procedure that would then go through the board’s normal 30-day public-comment window. Director Talofaro and others emphasized the need to publish consistent instructions for sign-up and reasonable-accommodation requests.

Petrovsky and others agreed to refer the issue to the policy committee to draft formal language. Chair Petrovsky said a revised draft could be prepared in the policy committee’s pre-committee schedule and returned to the full board for a workshop and a 30-day comment period; Directors discussed a target of a February workshop and possible March consideration but agreed to the formal process rather than an immediate unilateral change.

No formal motion or vote occurred at the workshop. Policy committee members (Petrovsky, Silk, Wilson) accepted the charge to draft the policy language and to post draft documents and guidance on the board website. Staff agreed to add a temporary shortcut link to the policy committee page to ease public navigation until the website is updated.

Directors emphasized that any policy change should clarify speaker order, accommodation procedures, how to submit written testimony, and the timeline for posting redline and clean drafts and for public comment.