Should members be able to attend meetings remotely? That was the question on April 4 during the Marion Planning Board meeting that became heated at times.
Chairman Robert Lane suggested that the Planning Board petition the Board of Selectmen to approve the use of remote attendance by Planning Board members who cannot make it to meetings and allow members to attend virtually instead, via video chat or telephone.
Lane said state regulations have a provision for remote meeting attendance for elected officials under five different circumstances – personal illness, personal disability, emergency, military service, or geographic distance – provided the member can be remotely present for the entire meeting.
Lane said this could be beneficial to board member Rico Ferrari who travels extensively during the wintertime and on snowy nights such as the one when board member Eileen Marum forewent traveling out into the snowstorm.
“I think [remote attendance] allows us to take full advantage of the seven members of the board to participate in our business, so I’m in favor of it,” said Lane.
Planning Board member Jennifer Francis was concerned about excessive use of remote attendance and suggested putting a cap on the number of times the accommodation could be used by any one member.
“I think if you commit yourself to being on a board, then you should commit yourself to attending most of the time,” said Francis.
Planning Board member Steve Gonsalves said he understood Francis’ position, yet he cautioned her, “Be careful what you wish for.”
“I don’t agree with that,” Gonsalves said. “I don’t think it should be governed by how many times…. Anybody who runs for one of these seats, as far as I’m concerned, they’re committed.”
Board member Michael Popitz said it would certainly benefit him on nights when he has a hospital shift and needs to miss a Planning Board meeting. He mentioned another board in the past that would let him attend remotely and he found it helpful.
That’s different than a town board, pointed out Planning Board member Norm Hills, who opposed the notion of remote attendance.
“I basically don’t agree because I think … the board has seven members that will function with four – that’s a quorum,” said Hills. “There’s no requirement that everybody be here and vote…. There’s no compelling reason to do it.”
Lane said he appreciated Hills’ comment, but preferred allowing all members the chance to vote. He suggested that they compromise by asking selectmen to let the board try it out for a year as an experiment.
“And if we don’t like it, we don’t have to do it,” said Lane.
Gonsalves said he liked that idea and suggested the board’s administrative assistant keep tabs on how often remote attendance is used, but added that the number of times it is used should not be held against the members.
“If it works and we’re comfortable, then great,” said Lane. “If not, we’ll drop it.”
Hills remained skeptical that remote attendance would fully satisfy the open meeting law and voted against the motion in a 4-1 vote.
Earlier in the meeting, Hills brought up concerns over how the meeting agenda is currently formatted and asserted that it did not follow the open meeting law requirements for agendas. He said he sent a request to Administrative Assistant to the Planning Board Terri Santos to have his concern placed on the agenda for that night’s meeting but never received a response.
“I looked at it quickly,” said Lane. As chairman, Lane is responsible for items placed on the agenda. “Although I think your comments are very appropriate, I think that what we do is acceptable and what you’re saying is acceptable, and I think that it’s fine. There’s latitude on how the agenda can be constructed and … it’s the way it’s been done. There’s no reason to get into a long discussion about it.”
According to Hills, though, the site he referenced online was “pretty clear,” adding he was “not making this up.”
But there was no need to discuss it, Lane shot back. The agenda was fine and there was no point in changing it.
“What we’re doing now doesn’t meet the open meeting law, so you should be concerned with that,” said Hills.
“I am concerned with it, but I don’t agree with you at all,” said Lane. “What we do absolutely meets the open meeting law; furthermore, it’s the same way in which agendas have been constructed for the two years that I have been on the board.”
Lane accused Hills of using the moment to raise the issue to benefit his campaign for the Board of Selectmen.
“That’s not … that is absolutely not true,” Hills said.
Popitz, Gonsalves, and Francis sat silently as Hills and Lane argued.
“None of the rest of us know what you’re talking about,” said Francis.
“Well, you haven’t read the statute so you wouldn’t know,” said Lane. “It’s something … absolutely inappropriate and unnecessary to talk about. I believe we are in complete compliance.”
It’s déjà vu all over again, said Gonsalves, recalling last year when a series of meetings turned sour over meeting minutes when Lane was clerk.
“And how long did we go through that?” said Gonsalves.
“Yeah, and you were wrong then, too,” Hills said to Lane.
“Excuse me! I was not wrong at all,” said Lane. “I am not going to let the board degenerate into more arguments like that.”
Lane shut down Hills as he continued talking.
“It’s over!” shouted Lane. “We’re not talking about it! If you want to campaign for selectman on the side, go do it outside, go meet with reporters. I’m not gonna have it in this meeting.”
Hills took off his eyeglasses and tossed them on the table before him.
“I think that’s a personal attack to tell me….” said Hills while Lane continued talking over him.
Gonsalves jumped in. To you, he said to Hills, “Everything’s wrong on this board.”
“That’s not true,” Hills replied.
“Coming out if your mouth, it’s been years of everything wrong. And that’s the truth, inconvenient as that is, Mr. Hills, “Gonsalves said.
Lane said during the three years he’d been on the board, Hills never brought the topic up.
“I tried to get this done two and and a half years ago,” said Hills.
The board swiftly moved on to a brief discussion on the ‘Frigate’ property security fence.
The next meeting of the Marion Planning Board is scheduled for April 18 at 7:00 pm at the Marion Town House.
By Jean Perry