Minutes 06-02-2020 Virtual Business Meeting

Browse Search

20 Option 4— allow remote meetings during declared states of emergency and allow individual members to attend remotely at any other time. Option 5— allow remote meetings at all times. Remote meetings will need to be compliant with statutory notice provisions and with open meetings laws. All remote meetings must provide for access by the public and where applicable, also comment by the public. Deputy Clerk David Hunt also indicates the Board should consider that a "hybrid meeting with some board members on-site and some at home will be technologically challenging. A conference call with a single phone in the meeting room would be the least complicated solution. Setting up a video conference is more complicated. (Think camera positions, sharing documents, view for members in the room, view for public in the room, etc.)" FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact associated with this action is dependent upon the number and type of remote meetings. John Roberts said staff has had some questions since this was published. He said quasi-judicial boards were intentionally left out, as they are not advisory boards, with the exception for the ethics portion of the advisory board policy. He said quasi judicial boards can meet virtually, regardless of the County's action (due to State statute), but his concern would be with decisions being overturned if there are connectivity issues, or troubles hearing, etc., which may lead to due process complaints. David Hunt said an advisory board meeting would likely be sitting at a table, and the easiest option for remote involvement would be telephonic. He said using a computer to join the meeting would be somewhat harder. Chair Rich said this was brought up because internal advisory boards cannot meet remotely now, because the current policy in place that says they cannot do so. Commissioner Marcoplos said he liked Option 5, as it gives maximum flexibility, but he may not have thought of potential drawbacks. John Roberts said one of the drawbacks is that even in a remote meeting, the public has to have access to the meetings, and he is not sure all departments have that capability. Commissioner Bedford said she is concerned that everyone may not have the technology and Internet access to do remote meetings. She said she preferred option 3, but option 4 may also work. She said she would like to have input from the advisory boards. She said she thinks it is very important to have video access, as following by audio alone can lead to confusion. She said technology can be helpful, and the goal here is to be more inclusive, but she does not want to inadvertently exclude people. Commissioner Dorosin said there are two interests to balance: facilitating the work of the boards and public access/transparency of meetings. He said even the BOCC zoom meetings are difficulty, and it is not the same as being together in person. Commissioner Dorosin said the best way to reconcile the issue is a combination of options 2 and 4: promoting in person expectations, with the option for remote participation if necessary. He said he hopes this will keep the remote participation low, but also allow for greater diversity in participation, as it allows for flexibility in extenuating circumstances. Chair Rich agreed, but with the comment that one cannot repeatedly attend virtually. She said the goal should be in person participation. Commissioner Price said she was looking at combining options 3 and 4. She said there is currently a state of emergency, and advisory boards need to meet, but she would like to have an option that people can participate virtually if needed (with the authorization from the Manager in option 3). She said she would also want the preference to be in person meetings. Commissioner McKee said he would support option 2 or 3.