Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council sends proposed remote‑attendance policy back to committee after public and council push for quorum safeguards
Summary
A draft policy allowing remote attendance and remote voting prompted public concern that a single council member in the room would be insufficient; council asked for revisions clarifying whether remote members count toward quorum, camera requirements, and emergency/urgent communication protocols.
Council considered a draft policy formalizing when borough council and council‑committee members may attend public meetings remotely. The policy would let remote members make motions and vote and asked whether remote attendance should count toward a quorum.
The policy presenter summarized key points: remote members should be able to "make a motion" and "vote," remote attendance would be permitted when being physically present is "impracticable," and the policy had been reviewed by the solicitor for compliance with the Home Rule Charter and state Sunshine law. The presenter also said the draft left the decision about chairing meetings to persons physically present.
Several council members and members of the public expressed strong objections to allowing only one person physically present. Anne Carroll, a resident and former council president, said she was "very, very uncomfortable with the idea of only 1 person in a room for a public meeting" and asked how the public could be confident that a single in‑room member was actually hearing or attending to comments. Other council members favored tightening quorum language and requiring that remote participants be visible on camera.
The council voted to send the draft back to the ACT committee to refine quorum language, camera or audiovisual requirements, whether remote attendees count toward a quorum, and to draft an expedited communications protocol for urgent matters (staff had proposed a 24‑hour response window for nonurgent emails and additional channels like Teams or direct calls for urgent communications).
Why it matters: the policy balances public‑access expectations under Sunshine law against practical needs for remote participation; public confidence in meeting fairness and transparency was a central concern.
What comes next: council's ACT committee will redraft the policy with clearer quorum and chairing rules and propose an emergency/urgent communications protocol for staff and council.
