New normal
Back in April of 2018, two years before the COVID- 19 pandemic struck, the city of Colby adopted rules for city council members attending meetings remotely. At that time, the council wanted to minimize the practice of elected officials calling in to meetings, so the policy made it clear that remote attendance should only be allowed under “special circumstances,” with approval by the mayor, “in order to meet quorum requirements.”
The policy also barred council members who are not in the council chambers from participating in closed session discussions.
In January of 2019, we recommended Colby’s policy as way of addressing concerns about remote attendance by a town trustee in Holton. We also advocated that the city of Abbotsford adopt similar rules, though that never happened.
Fast forward to early 2021, nearly a year after COVID-19 forced everyone to rethink the absolute necessity of in-person attendance. Since March and April of last year, several of our local boards and councils have offered Zoom links and call-in options for those who don’t feel comfortable attending meetings in person. Just this week, Colby’s public works committee held a Zoom-only meeting, with every city official participating from home while city hall remained closed.
Before the pandemic, this would have been almost unthinkable. At least some city officials would have been expected to be there in person. But now it seems like part of “the new normal.”
This brings us to a question that has recently been raised in Abbotsford: should council members who call in to meetings be allowed to participate in closed session discussions? In most cases, we would say no. The confidentiality of those conversations simply can’t be guaranteed if the rest of the council can’t verify that no else is in the room on the other end of the line.
But, given the lingering threat of COVID, can any municipality really force an elected official to attend a meeting in person? Open government advocates have consistently called for remote access to be provided in order to allow both the public and elected officials to continue the business of government despite the threat of a contagious and deadly disease.
In a column published in this paper just a couple weeks ago, the writer pointed out this section of Wisconsin statute, 19.89: “No duly elected or appointed member of a governmental body may be excluded from any meeting of such body.” At the same time, though, the law does not require that government bodies provide a call-in or a teleconferencing option, and it says nothing about calling in to closed session discussions.
Given the circumstances we’re currently in, we don’t think now is the time to establish a hard and fast rule about elected officials having to attend in person, even when it comes to closed sessions. Council members in Abbotsford and elsewhere will just have to trust each other that over-thephone conversations are being kept confidential.
That’s not an easy thing for us to say, since we generally agree with the notion that elected offi cials should be present and accounted for when doing the people’s business. Whenever this COVID crisis is declared “over,” we think all units of government will need to revisit their policies and procedures concerning remote attendance. It’ll be tempting to want to continue livestreaming practice indefinitely, especially since it offers a more convenient way for people to listen in and participate in meetings.
At the same time, though, we fear a future in which city council chambers sit empty while everyone convenes in a fully virtual meeting. We think that could erode the power of democracy over time, if elected officials never have to face their constituents in person. Closed session accountability would undoubtedly start to slip over time. Striking the right balance will be tricky, but it’s an important topic to address.
The Tribune-Phonograph editorial board consists of publisher Kris O’Leary and editor Kevin O’Brien
