Column: Time to return to in-person meeting participation
By Dan Kontos
We learned a lot of things from the COVID-19 pandemic of which we should take special note.
Only a few examples of this include how much we were lied to by our own government and others, lessons of panic and herd mentality, how big money drove the narrative, how censorship and faux-science were accepted — and even celebrated — over actual science, and how personal enrichment trumped caring for the well-being of fellow human beings. But that’s a story for another time.
One thing in particular that we did learn was how technology allowed us to do things differently. Specifically, I refer to our ability to leverage remote connections for work, school, social, and other purposes. These “Zoom” meetings allowed us to see and hear each other without having to leave the comfort of our own homes, wear complete outfits, or do other things if you’re CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. (I resisted the instinct to link an article here for the sake of decorum, but if you know, you know…)
Remote meetings made certain aspects of life possible in a world where we were not permitted to interact face-to-face. The technology had been around for decades in one form or another, but this period of time accelerated the popularity, availability, and acceptance of several different formats to attend gatherings through your computer, many of them free to use.
The ease of use of these new technologies simplified our lives in many ways, and are largely still in use today. Many people now work remotely on a permanent basis, virtual meetings are held routinely, and snow days at school have turned into remote-learning days, rather than a day off.
The numbers are stunning, and the changes made to our society are profound. There is a lot of debate about the value of remote working, and different applications have different effects, but what is not debatable is that this new hybrid world is becoming normalized rapidly.
Is this a good thing? Life is lived on the margins, and there are few absolutes in the world. So, with that said, the answer is “it depends.” One area that I believe is not beneficial, is governmental meetings.
Hear me out.
The more local the governmental meetings, the more important that the elected representatives interact, and “feel” the needs of their constituents. You can’t do that well via Teams, Zoom, or other platforms.
Sadly, many local governmental bodies still allow remote participation, and this should end. Local boards, counsels, committees, and all sorts of governmental meeting by elected officials are attended, at least in part, remotely. Are there good reasons? I’m not sure, but I do know that it changes the effectiveness of the meetings.
Take a look at these meetings, and watch the interaction, or lack thereof, between the members. This isn’t how things are meant to be done.
I believe that it’s important to meet together to read the room, interact with each other, see the faces of those with whom you disagree, give your full and undivided attention to the task at hand, and present yourself in front of others as you debate and respectfully argue your points of view. Robert’s Rules of Order were not designed to accommodate remote participation like this, and conducting a meeting in this fashion is difficult.
I’m going to catch a little heat from some officials I like and respect, but you were elected to represent your constituents by making the best decisions you can. I don’t believe that you can do that as effectively from your computer screen. Yes, it may not be as easy and convenient to make it to a meeting, but that’s what you were elected to do.
Are there good reasons for doing this? I’d like to be a bit hyperbolic and say authoritatively that there are not, but that may not be the case. I admit that good reasons may exist to allow this, but those, I believe, are few, and the totality of their impact outweighs the need for governmental representatives to meet in person. Bottom line, I’m not a fan — obviously.
Are these remote meetings even legal? Well, as with many things, the language of the statute is vague and has not caught up with the times. Members must be “present” to constitute a meeting, so we can interpret that, and argue reasoning, based on the outcome that we want. As an aside, some governmental bodies like Portage County specifically allow for remote attendance, while most are silent on the question.
The same goes for the public. If you want to present your questions or concerns, you should be there in person. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge fan of remote access for the purposes of viewing meetings. Openness and transparency in government are vital to having an informed electorate.
However, participation by the public through a computer screen encourages passions to take over through the perceived safety of the electronic barrier from which they hide behind. It also allows for the malicious and despicable practice of “zoom-bombing” a meeting, and has lead to calls to eliminate remote attendance. Bravo; I agree.
Change is inevitable. The philosopher Heraclitus is credited with saying, “The only constant in life os change.” As well, Benjamin Franklin once said, “When you are finished changing, you are finished.” I agree with that, but all change is not change for the better. We live life on the margins, and having our governmental representatives meet face-to-face, I believe, is better for our society as a whole.
Ladies and gentlemen, please, get back work, in person. It’s the best way to do the Peoples’ business.
So, with that, let’s meet in the opinion section to talk about all of it, boldly, honestly, and with a healthy respect for each other, even if we can’t meet face-to-face. Until then, God bless.
