91视频

When the pandemic began, we offered some perspectives about how online, virtual meetings might alter citizen participation in local government land use proceedings for the better. Traditional, in-person meetings require people to take time off from work, coordinate child care and sit through hours of testimony and in our view may not accommodate diverse participation within a community. Meetings are thus often dominated by more vocal, 鈥渇requent flyer鈥� type participants. Virtual meetings accommodate people who are still passionate but do not have sufficient time to commit to an in-person meeting.

Further, we opined that virtual meetings would enable a more level playing field for expressing participants鈥� concerns by removing some of the intimidation of speaking in front of an in-person crowd. Removing these barriers to participation, we thought, would result in greater diversity of opinion and more egalitarian decision-making.

We also noted that while online events and platforms may be more accessible to some groups of people, there was a downside. For some people, these platforms may be less accessible than an in-person meeting. For example, older adults, seniors, people with disabilities, those in rural areas, homeless individuals, and others may not have access to a computer or high-speed internet or may not know how to use virtual platforms.

Further, although the concept of 鈥淶oom fatigue鈥� has been an acknowledged phenomenon in the workplace, no one talks about how the virtual meeting platform impacts decision-makers. Compared to the spirited debate that emanates from a live hearing, a virtual meeting often feels more like a staged performance where passive decision-makers sit stone-faced watching a parade of thumbnail-size participants often seem to read from prepared remarks. It is intuitively unnatural to interact with small images of people on a screen.

Additionally, the feeling of disconnection through remoteness and distance gives the sensation that one is communicating, but not necessarily meeting. Follow-up questions and discussion with the public is rare as presumably few people wish to interrupt the overall flow. Reading the body language of decision-makers and people in sidebar negotiations, where small groups work together to adjust their differences, is essentially impossible.

Many jurisdictions have adopted a hybrid meeting structure allowing for both in-person and virtual participation. Although this hybrid approach should, at least in theory, respond to the limitations of one approach over the other, unfettered access may introduce other issues that must be kept in mind.

In hybrid meetings, there is a question of whether, or to what extent, a local government must ensure equal access for those appearing virtually. A person attending a live hearing may be moved to testify for another agenda item or to raise an in-the-moment objection with regard to particular procedure. In contrast, virtual participants often have to register in advance and are only given limited panelist credentials allowing them to speak or turn their video or audio on only during their assigned time to testify. Again, reading body language between decision-makers or participants, even when not wearing masks, cannot be underestimated. These concerns take on increased significance in the hybrid approach.

A subject of greater discussion early in the pandemic shutdown that deserves mention again is that public hearings in a virtual realm come with the same (though not identical) security risks as a live meeting. Recently, the quarterly meeting of the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation had to be called off because a public citizen began typing racist and homophobic remarks along with the home addresses of the committee members. The committee is an all-volunteer board charged with reviewing applicant-driven requests to add resources to the National Register of Historic Places and forwarding them to the National Parks Service for inclusion.

The resources from around the state slated for designation at this SACHP meeting included a number of buildings significant for their association with African-American heritage in Portland. These were the Mt. Olivet Baptist Church, the Golden West Hotel and Dean鈥檚 Beauty Salon and Barber Shop. Also, there was a locally controversial proposal for designation of the South Park Blocks. These meetings are typically low-key affairs where only those proponents of designation attend to acknowledge and celebrate the milestone. As such, there was certainly no reason to foresee that the work of this committee would trigger the need for stringent online security. Although the individual was disconnected from the meeting after the first few messages, the barrage of inflammatory remarks continued via multiple returns under different aliases. As a result, the meeting was abruptly adjourned.

There was no indication that this 鈥淶oom bombing鈥� was directed to any specific proposal for consideration. But even so, events like this could have a chilling effect on the willingness of decision-makers or other participants who offer their time and expertise at no charge and who may decide that subjecting oneself to such vile attacks and invasion of privacy is too high a price. Metal detectors or other in-person security measures have been installed in public hearing rooms across the state to ensure the safety and security of decision-makers, staff and participants, but this event is a reminder that some level of protection must be required in the virtual forum at all public meetings as well. The disruption of public business and any invasion of personal privacy of meeting facilitators should not be tolerated.

If some level of virtual participation is to become the norm, as it should, administrative rules governing all state and local government public meetings are critical. These rules must articulate the appropriate balance of broad opportunities for public participation, both live and virtual, against the need for security necessary to accomplish entity business while keeping everyone safe.

Edward Sullivan is a retired practitioner of land use and municipal law with more than 50 years of experience. Contact him at [email protected].

Carrie Richter is an attorney specializing in land use and municipal law at Bateman Seidel. Contact her at 503-972-9903 or [email protected].

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the preceding commentary are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the Daily Journal of Commerce or its editors. Neither of the authors nor the 91视频 guarantees the accuracy or completeness of any information published herein.