Council asks solicitor to clarify Sunshine Act, quorum and remote attendance rules

Council members spent substantial time debating how the Sunshine Act and the borough’s Home Rule Charter apply to remote attendance.

Chair Brian presented a draft approach that would limit virtual attendance to no more than 33% of committee or council meetings and recommended using a single platform for public sessions. "No more than 33% of committee meetings or council meetings can be attended, virtually," he said while explaining the rationale for a quota tied to transparency and operational continuity.

Bill, the borough’s IT lead, noted the borough currently uses Webex enterprise for public meetings and recommended continuing with Webex because it supports transcription and meeting-management features built for government hearings. Several members raised practical exceptions — illness, driving or technical failures — and asked for solicitor guidance on whether such exceptions would be permissible while maintaining public‑access obligations.

Council debated which powers remote members should retain. The committee coalesced around the position that a remote participant should be able to deliberate and vote but should not remotely chair a meeting or make motions; if a chair cannot be present in the room an in‑person replacement should preside.

Because the borough’s Home Rule Charter contains language about quorum and in‑room presence, members asked the solicitor to research whether a remote member counts for quorum and to provide guidance and sample county rules that have already been tested by counsel. That referral will be the primary legal follow‑up at the next work session.

Next steps: solicitor to report on quorum interpretation and whether remote participation may be counted toward quorum and exercise voting or motion powers.