Remotely possible?

Well, it has been a few days, hasn't it?

In the relative scheme of life, posting a blog after the insanity rearing its ugly head throughout the world hasn't been atop priority.  Temptations on some local matters aside, reality has a way of taking precedence over theory.

However, taking a look at tonight's agenda, one matter pops to mind that needs to be addressed, again. Remote participation.  Sorry, the way the law is written it is not something this town, and in fact any community should be doing.

Personal opinion, absolutely.  Sorry, but if you want to be an elected official; if you want to sit on a committee; if you want to lead, lead from the front lines.

Someone made the comment to me that my position on this is somehow personal.  Because of past actions before the selectboard about complaints for a piece and comments on this blog, I am making this personal.

Well, I tend to believe my position is consistent. This isn't the first time remote participation has been requested in our fair haven. I was opposed to it the first time.  I am opposed to it presently.  I will be opposed to it into the future.

Dial your wayback machine to the vote taken by the Selectboard on August 13, 2012. Two of your three present selectmen were on the board at that time. Both voted against it.

This is not a law that gives you the option to extend the privilege to one person, or to one board. A vote to allow it is authorization or vote applying to all subsequent meetings of all local public bodies in that municipality. 

The kicker is you still need a physical quorum to hold a meeting (see the regs. following the above link). So what does remote participation do for you?

Yes, there may be circumstances and issues when you want an entire board participating. There be very valid and compelling reasons why a particular member cannot be present. Yet, the potential drawbacks from remote participation, in what is again an admittedly personal opinion, far outweigh the limited limited circumstances where it might prove to be a strong preference.

There are so many aspects of actually being present and observing what goes on in so many decision making processes that remote participation is a determent, not only to the person participating remotely but to the citizen observing, be it in person or otherwise. Think about it.  Job interviews, disciplinary hearings, contentious issues.

And let's get back to the this applies to everyone.  Logistics, cost, and actually following the rules.

Not to mention necessity.  Is it a necessity for any board or committee to run? Seriously?

The concept of "I can be there more often as long as I don't have to actually be there" kind of is a bit perplexing.  

Yes indeed, many organizations and entities use conference calls and video conferencing.  That's because many organizations and entities do so because it is cheaper and easier than coordinating multiple schedules and travel and disrupting the operations of the organization or entity. It is in the business or entities best interest very more often than not.

We also should not forget that public hearings and public meetings require the public to attend if the public wants to participate.  Shouldn't we actually expect the same from those making the decision.

Sorry, but I don't see this as an answer to better government. I don't see this as an answer to good government.  I see this as something that serves the official not the citizens.