Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees split over allowing remote participation for board members
Summary
Trustees debated adding a remote‑participation ordinance after a public commenter opposed remote voting; supporters said limited remote access would help maintain quorum and participation, while opponents raised accountability, technical reliability and payment concerns. The discussion was deferred to the finance committee and other standing committees.
A broad discussion over whether to permit limited remote participation by trustees dominated committee conversation after public comment on March 11.
Denise Nicholson urged trustees to reject remote access, telling the committee it felt like a power move and asking why the item had been scheduled at a time some residents could not attend. "Please vote no on this remote access issue," she said.
Trustees were divided. Supporters said allowing Zoom or Teams in narrowly defined circumstances — work travel, health reasons or other excused absences — would preserve quorum and allow officials who otherwise would miss a meeting to participate. Opponents argued elected officials run on a promise to attend meetings and that in‑person presence fosters accountability. Several trustees raised scenarios including technical failures and a cited example of a representative on another board who fell asleep during a remote meeting.
One trustee noted comparable local ordinances in nearby municipalities, citing Bradley (section 2.43), Bourbonnais (section 2.3) and Kankakee County (section 2.19) as models that maintain a present quorum while allowing remote presence for excused reasons. Committee members asked whether any ordinance would (or should) limit the number of remote meetings a trustee may attend, whether trustees who have missed many meetings should be allowed to vote remotely, and how compensation would be handled for remote attendance.
The committee agreed to continue discussion at the finance committee and to address the item also within properties & recreation; no ordinance was adopted at the meeting.
