Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Remote Participation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Longmont council debates limit on extended remote participation by councilor Martin
Summary
At a Longmont City Council pre-session, members debated whether to set a firm end date for extended remote participation by Councilor Martin, who has been attending while in New York to care for a family member. Councilors cited legal, representational and practical concerns and agreed to place a motion on a future regular meeting agenda.
Longmont City Council members spent the pre-session debating whether to set a firm limit on extended remote participation by Councilor Martin, who has been attending meetings from New York while caring for a family member.
Councilors grounded the discussion in two practical concerns: residency and representation. "Once you sign and have lived in New York for 183 days you're considered a resident," Mayor P said, adding that in New York "the clock starts ticking the moment you've paid rent" and that the speaker’s research and family experience suggested state tax exposure at about "13.3%." That residency and tax point was raised as background to whether prolonged remote attendance could create legal or representational complications.
Councilor Joan reminded colleagues of a prior motion passed on May 14 to allow Councilors Martin and McCoy to participate remotely "until no longer needed" under rule 25.2 a.2 of the council rules of procedure. "We put a date certain at the end of December," Joan said during the pre-session discussion as a suggested way to limit an open-ended remote arrangement while permitting Councilor Martin to return for key votes.
Councilor Martin said she does not intend to resign immediately and described plans to return for pivotal items: "I will have had a domicile ... I will not have established residency here for 6 months ... I will, in fact, resign" only if she cannot return by the date she previously cited. Martin emphasized continuing to perform council duties remotely and by coordinating with board chairs and staff.
Other councilors debated appointment versus special election if a vacancy occurs. Some said appointment risks "anointing" and preferred a special election to preserve democratic choice, while others noted expense and practical timing constraints for a special election.
No formal vote was taken at the pre-session. Council members agreed to place a motion on a future regular meeting agenda (the council signaled next Tuesday as the target) to resolve whether remote attendance will end on a date certain, and to revisit rules and charter provisions about filling vacancies.
The council also asked staff to compile the charter and procedural language cited during discussion so the full council can consider options at the regular meeting.
