City Council tackles electronic communication

Thursday, July 15, 2021

In pre-pandemic days, a rollcall cry of “here” meant physically present at the facility. But over the past two years of the pandemic, that has been relaxed and members of a board or council could Zoom in from home and join the meeting in their pajamas or listen via cellphone in their car if they wished.

That was because meeting regulations laid out in the Open Door Law were eased a bit to allow governmental meetings to continue despite the dangers of Covid.

Now, however, with that threat hopefully in the review mirror, new regulations are being enacted to establish a policy by which members of a board or council may participate by electronic means of communication.

At its July meeting the Greencastle City Council saw a resolution to that effect introduced but ultimately tabled.

“It’s a philosophical question,” Councilman Adam Cohen suggested. “How we do it is less important than do we believe we need to be present for these meetings.

“I know no one (from the public) is here, but the essence of government is facing and being here for our constituents,” Cohen continued.

“On the other hand, times have changed and electronic stuff is more relevant in the younger generation than it is in mine.”

Under Resolution 2021-10, at least 50 percent of City Council members must be physically present at a meeting at which a member will participate by means of electronic communication. Not more than 50 percent of members may participate by electronic means at that meeting.

Also, a Council member may not attend more than half of the meetings in a calendar year via electronic means unless due to military service, illness, death of a relative or an emergency involving actual or threatened injury to persons or property. A member may only attend two consecutive meetings via electronic means, other than due to the same exceptions above.

The resolution states that no member of the Council may participate via electronic means in a meeting in which the Council may take final action to adopt a budge, make a reduction in personnel, initiate a referendum, impose or increase a fee, impose or increase a penalty, exercise eminent domain or establish, impose, raise or renew a tax.

“I think this is the future,” Council member Stacie Langdon said. “And I think what we’ve been through with Covid, it allows us the opportunity to attend the meeting if we happen to be out of town.

“I love that it says half the people have to physically be here,” she added. “I don’t think we’re going to take advantage of this policy but I think it enable us to attend a meeting where we may not have been able to two years ago.”

Council President Mark Hammer agreed.

“I love the fact that you can’t miss more than two (meetings),” he stressed.

Councilman Cody Eckert agreed that it is the future of public meetings.

“Every single industry is trying to figure out how to take the best adaptations from last year and carry them into the future,” Eckert said. “This is us dipping our toe into that realm. I would love for us to move toward getting access to the public even further.

“I know this is just us allowing members to attend electronically but there’s still so many protections maintained in here for the public,” Eckert added. “We have to be here so our face is in front of the voters whenever we adopt a budget, make a reduction in personnel, initiate a referendum, improve or increase a fee, improve or increase a penalty, do eminent domain or raise a new tax. So there could be months in a row where all of us do have to be here anyway.”

Council President Hammer reminded the group that it can make the resolution more restrictive but not less restrictive than the state stipulates, adding that appointment of a school board member should be added to the list of required physical attendance.

“We’d be one of the rare municipalities to have that,” Eckert responded, alluding to the appointed Greencastle School Board, for which the City Council has two appointees.

Mayor Bill Dory suggested that the Council might want to table the resolution due to a few legal questions it needs to address with City Attorney Laurie Hardwick, who was not present.

“The reality is,” Mayor Dory said, “we don’t have the electronic means to do this. It’s going to take a while to put that plan together.”

City Clerk-Treasurer Lynda Dunbar asked Council members how much they would be willing to spend on the project.

There was no immediate response.

“Letting the public be part of our meetings is the future, and it’s a good thing,” Cohen interjected. “The more transparent our meetings become, the more they should easily find us on YouTube and Zoom.”

Mayor Dory reminded him the city was currently broadcasting live on its cable access channel and on YouTube as well.

“Hi, Mom,” Cohen offered to the camera.

“But she can’t can ‘Hi’ back,” Councilor Veronica Pejril said in alluding to the lack of interactive capability.

She suggested that the city could get by with a 65-inch TV over the fireplace and a 55-inch monitor on the south wall of the Council chambers, as well as a signal splitter and a PC computer to run it all.

“We’re probably talking three grand for the full monty,” Pejril added.

She will confer about the details with Dunbar and Greg Stephan of the DePauw Media Center, who operates the cab access channel for the city.

Besides the hardware, Mayor Dory noted that it will be necessary to spend some money to hire and train someone to run it once it gets to the interactive stage.

“Somebody’s going to have to manage who’s talking so the public isn’t talking over each other,” the mayor said.

Langdon made the motion to table Resolution 2021-10, which will necessitate Council approval at only one meeting. The vote was unanimous.

Councilman Jacob Widner joined Hammer, Cohen, Langdon, Pejril and Eckert for the two-hour meeting. Councilman Dave Murray was absent.

The City Council will next meet in regular session at 7 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 12 at City Hall.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: