Published in the May 27, 2021 edition.

By MARK SARDELLA

WAKEFIELD — With the last of the COVID restrictions set to expire with the state of emergency on June 15, the Town Council this week adopted a “Remote Participation Policy” that will apply to all town boards going forward.

Town Counsel Thomas Mullen said that unless the Town Council adopts remote participation, the old rules will go back into effect on June 15 and remote participation by board members will not be allowed at meetings. Under state law, even if a town adopts remote participation, a quorum of any board’s member must be physically present at a meeting, including the chairman. 

The state’s remote participation statute pre-dates COVID and was being discussed in Wakefield before the pandemic struck, although the Town Council did not adopt the provisions of the state statute until this week.

A municipality may adopt its own policy that prohibits or further restricts the use of remote participation by public bodies, beyond what is set forth in the state statute, Mullen said.

Mullen told the Town Council that he had drafted the Remote Participation Policy by adapting policies from other towns.

The policy requires that members of the town board who wish to participate remotely must complete an Authorization to Utilize Remote Participation Form in advance of the meeting. Members of the town board who participate remotely and all persons present at the meeting locations must be clearly audible to each other. Members of the town board who participate remotely will have access to the same materials being used at the meeting location and members of the town board who participate remotely may vote and will not be deemed absent.

The policy states that remote participation in meetings should be an infrequent event. It encourages board chairs to interpret the rules in a strict fashion and to urge all members to attend meetings in person as a general rule, due to the inherent benefits of physical presence in a meeting.

A member of a board will be allowed to participate in a meeting remotely if it is deemed that the member’s physical presence would be unreasonable difficult due to one of the following reasons: personal illness or disability, emergency, military service or significant geographic distance.

Under the policy, the following media are acceptable for remote participation: telephone, internet, satellite-enabled audio or video conferencing or any other technology that enables the remote participant and all persons present at the meeting location to be clearly audible to one another.

All votes taken during any meeting in which one or more members of a town board participates remotely shall be by roll call vote.

Mullen said that when the law speaks of remote participation, it is referring only to board members. He said that there was nothing in the law to prevent people at home from watching or calling in to a meeting.

But Town Councilor Ann Santos cautioned against expecting full Zoom participation by the public to continue. Santos supported adopting the Remote Participation Policy, but noted that there are cost, technology and manpower considerations to be worked out when it comes to meetings that are a hybrid of in-person and remote participation.

Several members of the Town Council said that public engagement in meetings seemed to increase with the ability to use Zoom and they expressed a desire to find ways for that to continue.

Town Administrator Stephen P. Maio said that the town was already working on ways that hybrid meetings could be done from different locations in town. Town Councilor Edward Dombroski encouraged the chair to put the matter on the agenda for further discussion at the next Town Council meeting.

He said that he would be happy to work on a subcommittee to look at ways to continue remote access to meetings. Councilor Anne Danehy volunteered to work with Dombroski.

Smith-Galvin agreed to put it on the agenda for the next Town Council meeting.

Meanwhile, Gov. Charlie Baker filed legislation Tuesday that would continue the current level of remote participation until Sept. 1 to allow local boards to meet quorum requirements remotely so long as they ensure the public has access to deliberations.

Baker’s office said that this “will allow additional time to consider possible permanent changes to the open meeting law to provide for greater flexibility in conducting open meetings through reliance on electronic streaming and similar measures.”

However, pending passage of the aforementioned legislation, the current level of remote participation will expire in mid-June.

In addition to aiding in the fight against COVID-19, the sudden onset of widespread remote public meetings has turned into a major transparency improvement across different levels of government. Streamed meetings have enabled anyone interested to more easily follow government deliberations and offer testimony at public hearings without taking time off from work or traveling long distances to attend in-person gatherings.

In a letter to lawmakers on Monday, Massachusetts Municipal Association Executive Director Geoffrey Beckwith said pandemic rules had facilitated “innovative approaches to governance and service delivery” that should be retained. He asked lawmakers to make permanent the special rules that allowed the option of remote meetings and remote public participation.

“Remote meetings have engaged more residents than ever before and have significantly increased transparency and insight into government operations and decision-making,” Beckwith wrote. “Communities do not want to snap back to the overly confining pre-pandemic rules, and many are not in a position to do so quickly.”

Rep. Denise Garlick of Needham and Sen. Jason Lewis of Winchester filed legislation (H 3152 / S 2082) that would permanently require all public meetings to offer “adequate, alternative means of public access” such as audio or video conferencing. Their proposal has the support of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts.

“Governor Baker is right to propose extending virtual participation options for public meetings until September,” ACLUM Executive Director Carol Rose said in a statement. “But as the state begins to reopen, access to public meetings should never again depend on a person’s physical mobility, access to transportation, or work and family obligations. People are more likely to be civically engaged if they are able to participate in public meetings remotely — and local democracy works best when all of us are able to engage.”

Material from the State House News Service contributed to this report.