Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Remote Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses remote‑participation and public‑comment rules; sends legal questions back to solicitor
Summary
Members debated proposals to require remote participants (public and councilors) to keep cameras on and to provide written explanations when attending multiple meetings remotely; the committee tabled rule changes pending solicitor legal form and recorded one maker's order as 'complied with.'
The committee debated two related rule changes on May 6 aimed at transparency for remote participation: an order proposing stricter public‑comment requirements (camera on, name/address/ward) and a proposal from Councilor Murphy Ramboletti asking that councilors who attend more than two consecutive full council meetings remotely provide a written explanation to the council president and use their camera.
Councilors voiced a mix of support for transparency and concern about enforceability and personal privacy. Councilor Linda Bacon said she did not believe the camera and written‑explanation rules were enforceable because state law allows remote attendance and councilors are independently elected. "I don't find it to be enforceable," Bacon said. Councilor Howard Graney raised confidentiality concerns, asking how medical privacy would be protected if a member participated remotely because of illness.
Murphy Ramboletti said the proposal is meant to promote transparency, not to eliminate remote attendance, and suggested any change could take effect after a grace period. After discussion, the committee asked the city solicitor to draft legal language for the public‑comment rule and tabled that item until the next meeting. For the maker's order on councilors' written explanations and camera use, the committee recorded the motion as "complied with" by agreement of the maker rather than advancing a formal rule change.
City Solicitor Mike Bissonnette did not object to providing legal language but advised the committee that some limits are set by state law and that careful drafting is needed. The items will return with solicitor‑prepared language for further committee consideration.
