Rochester board tables changes to video-conferencing rules, asks outside counsel for guidance
Loading...
Summary
The board tabled proposed amendments to the district’s video-conferencing policy (23.25) after an extended debate about in-person quorum, disability exceptions, and mutual accountability. The board asked outside counsel (CGCS) and the New York State school board association for written guidance before further changes.
The Rochester City School District Board of Education on Aug. 12 tabled further changes to its video‑conferencing policy (23.25) and asked outside counsel and professional associations to return with recommended revisions and legal guidance.
Why it matters: Commissioners expressed deep concern about perceived overuse of remote participation, the public’s right to in‑person oversight, and accountability for elected officials. Others urged caution to preserve legally authorized disability exceptions and to avoid viewpoint discrimination when enforcing decorum.
What the board discussed
Board members spent more than an hour debating how to balance public access, legal requirements, and commissioner accountability. President Simmons framed the issue as a public‑trust matter, saying the board ‘‘is answering to the public’’ and urging clearer rules that preserve in‑person presence when possible. Commissioner Griffin proposed tightening the policy so that only one or two members could participate remotely unless the president authorized additional remote participation. Commissioner LeBron urged the board to preserve reasonable accommodation for commissioners with disabilities and noted that state law permits certain disability-based remote participation.
General Counsel Veil and the state monitor also spoke. Veil summarized the applicable Open Meetings Law provisions, explaining that extraordinary-circumstances and disability exceptions exist but are optional for any local public body to adopt in its written procedures; he cautioned the board that any restriction or muting regime must avoid unlawful viewpoint discrimination and should include procedural safeguards.
Several commissioners proposed specific accountability measures: clearer notice requirements (24‑hour advance notice for planned remote participation unless circumstances prevent it), written notification to the board clerk and president, and limits on the number of commissioners allowed to participate remotely. Commissioners also raised operational details such as whether the chair can mute a remote commissioner and what appeal or review process would follow if a chair mutes a member during a meeting.
Outcome
Commissioner Griffin moved, and Vice President Malloy seconded, a motion to table the proposed policy changes and seek written guidance from CGCS (the district’s counsel) and NISBA (New York State school board association). The motion to defer passed by voice vote; the board directed staff to collect commissioners’ suggested language and provide it to counsel for review.
Clarifying details and next steps
- The board asked staff and counsel to prepare a draft that addresses (a) the definition of "extraordinary circumstances," (b) notice and documentation requirements for remote participation, (c) whether to limit the number of remote commissioners, and (d) an appeal or review procedure should a chair mute a participant.
- General Counsel Veil advised that any muting or decorum enforcement mechanism should include a clear appeal path to avoid claims of viewpoint discrimination.
Ending: The board will return to the video‑conferencing discussion after counsel and the professional association review suggested language and provide a recommended draft for the board to consider at a future work session.
