Out of town attendance...

[Guest Borough Man]

I recently atteneded a local municipal meeting. One of the councilmen voted via phone. Should this be allowed? How can this be stopped?

[George Mervosh]

Unless the governing statute or bylaws permit it, it can't be done. See RONR, p. 408-409 and consult their solicitor for other information.

[hmtcastle]

I recently atteneded a local municipal meeting. One of the councilmen voted via phone. Should this be allowed? How can this be stopped?

If you're a member of the council, raise a point of order to the effect that absentee voting is not permitted. If you're not a member of the council, find a sympathetic member to do it.

[Gary Novosielski]

I recently atteneded a local municipal meeting. One of the councilmen voted via phone. Should this be allowed? How can this be stopped?

As a public municipal body, there may be state laws that override RONR on this point. You may need to consult a lawyer, or do some research on your state's Sunshine Laws or Open Public Meetings Act. If telephone "attendance" is allowed, RONR requires that all parties be able to hear each other during the various phases of debate/discussion/voting.

[Rob Elsman]

As a public municipal body, there may be state laws that override RONR on this point. You may need to consult a lawyer, or do some research on your state's Sunshine Laws or Open Public Meetings Act. If telephone "attendance" is allowed, RONR requires that all parties be able to hear each other during the various phases of debate/discussion/voting.

I have previously opined that a member's trying to "attend" by way of a telephone call when the other members are actually present does not fall within the definition of "teleconference", as discussed in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 482, 483. What I understand to be a "teleconference" is what the telephone company would call a "conference call" in which the members are more or less similarly connected in an electronic network.

[Gerry4000]

I have previously opined that a member's trying to "attend" by way of a telephone call when the other members are actually present does not fall within the definition of "teleconference", as discussed in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 482, 483. What I understand to be a "teleconference" is what the telephone company would call a "conference call" in which the members are more or less similarly connected in an electronic network.

I am a board member of a highly government regulated entity with bylaws that allow remote attendance at a board meeting by telephone or video conference. As specifiied in our bylaws, the meeting is held with many of the board members present and those "attending" remotely have all the rights and priviliges of those in person. The remote access must allow full two way communication with all participating.

[Rob Elsman]

I am a board member of a highly government regulated entity with bylaws that allow remote attendance at a board meeting by telephone or video conference. As specifiied in our bylaws, the meeting is held with many of the board members present and those "attending" remotely have all the rights and priviliges of those in person. The remote access must allow full two way communication with all participating.

Yeah, I've done videoconferencing in business settings. Those in my town sat around a table with each person having a microphone in front of him. There were a couple of cameras to take different angles of the meeting room to capture who was speaking. A screen at the front of the room projected a similar scene of the people in the other city. I think this kind of situation--video or not--works out fine. What doesn't work out is someone trying to "participate" over a receiver or cell phone held up in the room.

[Gary Novosielski]

I have previously opined that a member's trying to "attend" by way of a telephone call when the other members are actually present does not fall within the definition of "teleconference", as discussed in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 482, 483. What I understand to be a "teleconference" is what the telephone company would call a "conference call" in which the members are more or less similarly connected in an electronic network.

Yes, I know, but I disagree.

It's a matter of degree. In this case, if all the members are together in a room but for one, then he is participating with the group over the telephone. Specifically, he is participating with all of the group over the telephone, therefore all of the group are participating, with him, in the teleconference. True, some of the members could theoretically communicate with each other without the telephone being present, but then the last member would not be in attendance, because he cannot hear or be heard by them. That piece, the phone line, is required not just for him to attend, but for the entire assembly to be considered to be in the same meeting.

If that bothers you, consider the other near-extreme case, where twenty different people are meeting--eighteen of them on a conference call using eighteen individual phones, and the last two of them in a conference room with a speakerphone.

To me it's the same situation. Without the phone link there is no full, multi-way communication among all the participants. The network topography is more complex, but not different in kind. The number of people linked remotely, from one through n doesn't change the fundamental nature of the meeting. Either teleconference is an acceptable method of attendance, or not. And if it is, then any or all members should have that privilege.

A common use for this rule is when an important meeting is being held, but some member(s) cannot attend because of, say, business travel. If that amounts to just one member, then nothing is gained by forcing those who are assembled at the normal meeting place to take out their cell phones and participate electronically.