Agenda - 09-01-20; 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

21 1 specifically includes three quasi-judicial boards in the ethics and limitations sections of the 2 Policy. These three boards are left out of the remote meetings sections based on due process 3 concerns with conducting quasi-judicial hearings remotely. 4 5 All proposed language is included in the draft and the Board may change or reject all, including 6 the technical correction mentioned above, and should discuss any other options the Board may 7 wish to consider. 8 9 Option 1 — leave in place the restrictions on remote meetings. 10 Option 2 — leave the general restriction on remote meetings in place for advisory boards, but 11 specifically authorize the Manager to allow a remote meeting for an advisory board when a 12 meeting is immediately necessary to further County business. 13 Option 3— only allow remote meetings during declared states of emergency and do so for all 14 advisory boards whether or not authorized by the Manager. 15 Option 4— allow remote meetings during declared states of emergency and allow individual 16 members to attend remotely at any other time. 17 Option 5— allow remote meetings at all times. 18 19 Remote meetings will need to be compliant with statutory notice provisions and with open 20 meetings laws. All remote meetings must provide for access by the public and where 21 applicable, also comment by the public. Deputy Clerk David Hunt also indicates the Board 22 should consider that a "hybrid meeting with some board members on-site and some at home 23 will be technologically challenging. A conference call with a single phone in the meeting room 24 would be the least complicated solution. Setting up a video conference is more complicated. 25 (Think camera positions, sharing documents, view for members in the room, view for public in 26 the room, etc.)" 27 28 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact associated with this action is dependent upon the 29 number and type of remote meetings. 30 31 John Roberts said staff has had some questions since this was published. He said 32 quasi-judicial boards were intentionally left out, as they are not advisory boards, with the 33 exception for the ethics portion of the advisory board policy. He said quasi judicial boards can 34 meet virtually, regardless of the County's action (due to State statute), but his concern would be 35 with decisions being overturned if there are connectivity issues, or troubles hearing, etc., which 36 may lead to due process complaints. 37 David Hunt said an advisory board meeting would likely be sitting at a table, and the 38 easiest option for remote involvement would be telephonic. He said using a computer to join 39 the meeting would be somewhat harder. 40 Chair Rich said this was brought up because internal advisory boards cannot meet 41 remotely now, because the current policy in place that says they cannot do so. 42 Commissioner Marcoplos said he liked Option 5, as it gives maximum flexibility, but he 43 may not have thought of potential drawbacks. 44 John Roberts said one of the drawbacks is that even in a remote meeting, the public has 45 to have access to the meetings, and he is not sure all departments have that capability. 46 Commissioner Bedford said she is concerned that everyone may not have the 47 technology and Internet access to do remote meetings. She said she preferred option 3, but 48 option 4 may also work. She said she would like to have input from the advisory boards. She 49 said she thinks it is very important to have video access, as following by audio alone can lead to