Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Remote attendance and voting raise procedural questions at Sodus Point planning board meeting
Summary
The board noted a remote member would not vote, but vote tallies later list that member as voting; minutes record an apparent inconsistency about Mark Costich’s voting status that the board did not address in the meeting.
The Planning Board recorded at the outset that remote member Mark Costich would not vote because of his remote attendance, but later vote tallies in the minutes list Costich among the members recorded as "aye," creating an inconsistency in the meeting record.
The minutes state a quorum was established with five members present but that Costich "would be not voting due to his remote attendance." Later, votes on the minutes and on the Myerly dock approval are recorded as: Evener—aye, Kedley—aye, McKee—aye, Fogarty—aye and Costich—aye. The transcript does not contain an explicit explanation for the discrepancy or note any procedure that allowed Costich to vote remotely in this instance.
The board did not record any further discussion or a formal roll-call explanation resolving the inconsistency. The matter may require staff clarification or an amended minutes entry to reconcile the procedural note with the recorded votes.
