Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Virtual Attendance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prescott City Council narrows draft virtual‑attendance policy; staff flags $11,000 equipment cost and security concerns
Summary
City staff presented a draft policy allowing council members to participate remotely; staff said about $11,000 in one‑time equipment would be needed and that two IT operators may be required during meetings. Council supported the idea but voted informally to limit remote participation to three meeting days per year pending legal and IT input.
City staff presented a draft virtual‑attendance policy to the Prescott City Council on March 10, saying state open‑meeting law permits remote participation only if the council adopts a specific policy governing identification, security and procedure. "When the request was received, our IT staff began looking into some options, for upgrades and enhancements to the equipment and chambers," said Sarah, a city staff member, describing a draft included in the meeting packet.
Staff told the council that the IT department estimated roughly $11,000 in one‑time equipment costs to enable a secure Teams link and that an additional staff person would likely be needed in the back room to manage audio and video while staff run the in‑room presentation. "The issue is sound feedback," the staff member said, and added that concerns include verification that a remote participant is indeed the council member and the risk of meeting hacks: "we did have during COVID ... a couple of hacks during meetings."
Mayor (presiding officer) and council members recalled using Zoom during the COVID emergency and said remote participation had worked well then. "People started working remotely from home and found it very convenient," the mayor said, while acknowledging the council discontinued routine virtual access after the emergency ended.
Council discussion centered on practical safeguards and exceptions. Councilman Gehring suggested requiring a camera to verify identity: "you'd be able to identify the participant if they simply require them to have their camera on," he said. Staff and council members also discussed city‑issued devices, two‑factor authentication and the need for rules to cover emergencies such as medical events or travel disruptions.
Members also debated usage limits. The draft had proposed up to six remote participations per calendar year; several council members called that too high. Lois, a council member, said voters expect members to be present and recommended a lower cap. After an informal poll during the study session, the mayor recorded a council consensus to reduce the draft cap to three meeting days per year and asked staff to revise the draft to clarify "meeting days" versus "meetings." "Three it is," the mayor said, directing staff to work with legal and IT before returning the policy for formal consideration.
Next steps: staff will revise the draft policy to reflect council guidance on limits, notification (the presiding officer and the city clerk), device and authentication options, and exceptions for unforeseen emergencies before returning to council for formal action.
