As the county and the world begin to return to something resembling normal, several local government boards are keeping one remnant of the pandemic: Electronic meeting options.
Since March 2020, more members of the public have participated in this fashion than they did in person pre-pandemic. Most meetings since then have been conducted on Zoom, which provides a chat function so people can ask questions.
Before the pandemic, members of boards were not allowed to participate electronically for meetings. Then, rules were changed at the state level that allowed all meetings to move to virtual formats to ensure business could be conducted safely.
At the May 17 and May 19 meetings of the Brown County Council and Brown County Commissioners, the boards approved a resolution establishing minimum policy for members when participating by electronic means of communication. The Nashville Town Council approved a nearly identical resolution on May 20.
The resolution was a template from the state level and is one that other counties will be implementing as well.
Other boards, including the Brown County Area Plan Commission and school board, have not yet made final decisions on how they’re going to handle meetings and electronic options.
The school board has done its last two meetings as a combination of in-person and virtual, with people interacting on Zoom with board members in person.
Here’s what has been decided so far:
<strong>COUNTY COUNCIL AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS</strong>
<ul>
<li>Less than half of the board can meet via electronic means. At least 50 percent of the board must be present at the physical meeting location. Both boards have an odd number of members, so the minimum required to be in person for the county commissioners is two (of three total), and for the county council, four (of seven total).</li>
<li>If members are participating virtually, they must use a format that allows them to communicate simultaneously with other board members.</li>
<li>The public also will be allowed to simultaneously attend and observe the meeting if it is not an executive session; those are closed to the public. If a member is attending virtually, then that virtual platform must be available to the public, too.</li>
<li>A specific platform was not named in the resolution, like Zoom, which means boards could utilize free platforms like Facebook Live and YouTube to broadcast future meetings.</li>
<li>Members can only “participate in final action” (such as a vote) when attending remotely if the member can be seen and heard.</li>
<li>If a member votes electronically, a roll call vote must be taken.</li>
<li>A member cannot attend more than 50 percent of meetings in a calendar year virtually unless it is due to military service, illness or medical conditions, the death of a relative, or an emergency involving injury to people or property, according to the policy. The same rules apply to if a member wants to attend two consecutive meetings virtually. They must attend one meeting in between unless the above reasons apply.</li>
<li>Minutes must be detailed and explain who is attending virtually or in person.</li>
<li>Members attending virtually cannot vote on the following: adopting a budget; making a reduction in personnel; initiating a referendum; imposing or increasing a fee; imposing or increasing a penalty; exercising eminent domain; or establishing, imposing, raising or renewing a tax.</li>
</ul>
<strong>NASHVILLE TOWN COUNCIL</strong>
<ul>
<li>Policy includes everything from county council’s and commissioners’ resolution above. The number of members who have to be physically at the meeting location is three (of five total).</li>
<li>A section in the town’s resolution which is not included in the county’s says that if an emergency is declared by the governor or town council president, members are not required to be physically present for meetings until the emergency is terminated.</li>
<li>The town council did not vote on whether or not members of the public will be able to speak during a meeting if they are not physically in the room.</li>
<li>All town boards that the town council appoints can go back to in-person meetings.</li>
</ul>
<strong>BROWN COUNTY AREA PLAN COMMISSION</strong>
The board discussed for more than 45 minutes on May 25 whether or not they wanted to keep offering electronic attendance options for board members and/or members of the public.
Several members are eager to get back to meeting in person under “the old way” of doing things, when if you were sick, you were sick, and you just didn’t attend, and business could still be conducted as long as there was a quorum.
Member Kara Hammes said it’s important to allow people many options to engage and encouraged the board to continue offering a remote attendance option. Other members supported this sentiment, but concerns also were brought up about how the board secretary could handle taking notes, recording votes, monitoring the Zoom chat and waiting room, and making sure that everyone in person and on Zoom can hear each other and see presentations, all at the same time.
They also weren’t sure if the county had the equipment to do audio and video well for people attending virtually. Staff members were going to check with the county commissioners and IT department about those capabilities.
The June 22 APC meeting will be in person at the County Office Building’s Salmon Room — with no Zoom option planned for now — and a policy from that point on will be discussed then.
<strong>BROWN COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS</strong>
The BZA decided last week not to have virtual meeting attendance options and go back to the old in-person way of doing things.
<strong>Observe only, or participate too?</strong>
During the May 17 county council meeting, there was discussion over whether “attend” and “observe” means that the public would still be allowed to ask questions over Zoom or some other format.
“By reading this, it seems to imply that all meetings going forward must be publicly available for electronic participation?” council member Darren Byrd asked.
“Of board members,” county commissioner Diana Biddle said.
Byrd said that if board members have the ability to attend virtually, then every meeting would be subject to that availability for the public, too. Biddle said that since the Indiana Open Door Law states that the public is allowed to “attend and observe,” the policy is consistent with that.
“It would be no different than when we were broadcasting the meetings on the website. The public had the opportunity to attend and observe,” she said.
“Attend does not mean participate.”
The Open Door Law does not guarantee the public’s right to speak at a public meetings. People have the right to attend and observe all public proceedings, but there is no rule that requires a board to allow a person to address a governing body, according to a handbook on Indiana’s Public Access Laws.
County council President Dave Redding said he was in favor of broadcasting meetings whether a member is attending virtually or not.
“I think we have to come up with a best practice among our council folks because there’s a lot of other questions that come to mind here that aren’t really part of this resolution, but who arbitrates illness or medical condition?” he asked.
“A lot of this is just going to be on the honor system. … We will have to work with the auditor’s office on a best practice.”
County council member Scott Rudd said he felt the policy was limiting virtual access for the public. “I think a lot of people have gotten comfortable with virtually attending and participating. I know it seems to have increased our participation in meetings. We have to manage that and get business done, keep things orderly, but I want to leave that door open,” he said.
“I really want us to embrace technology at the county and invest in things that help people be more efficient, not have to drive to the county building and fill out a permit, pay for things and attend meetings,” he said.
“When we do move forward and do best practice, I think it would be great to consider virtual meetings that allow the public to participate as well, if we think that makes sense.”
Rudd said that this policy also applies to committees the county council appoints. “That gets pretty extensive. We probably need to seriously consider some technology investments that allow us to hear people, whether it’s a voting member and see them possibly in the meeting room, as well as the public,” he said. He suggested looking into using the recent American Rescue Plan funding to pay for some of those technology updates.
Rudd said that the policy overall means more work for the council and auditor when it comes to the detailed minutes and making sure votes are in line with what is allowed.
Biddle said that the resolution establishing the policy was written by the county’s attorney, Barnes and Thornburg, using state minimums.
“We’re going to have to really keep an eye on this,” Rudd said.
“If this is the state minimum, it sounds like we don’t have a choice, but we’re kind of putting some constraints on ourselves that we really have to be careful about.”
