Chatham Committee To Fine-Tune Remote Meeting Guidelines

CHATHAM, NJ - With remote meetings no longer required because of New Jersey’s change in COVID restrictions, Chatham Township Committee members discussed the topic at their last meeting about how to handle remote meeting platforms and cable access.

During their discussion, all of the Township Committee members agreed there was value in remote access for a range of reasons, but said they believed they needed to tweak some of their policies for cable access and meeting formats like Zoom, going forward.

The Township Committee members agreed on planning for a resolution at their upcoming meeting in August, the next one on Aug. 12, that will include language about continuing their meeting, even if remote access drops due to a power or internet outage, when a meeting is in process.

During a special meeting on July 8, then-Deputy Mayor Stacey Ewald, now the township’s mayor, read a statement that the meeting would continue even if power or internet was knocked out by a storm, with severe weather expected that night.

Township Attorney Albert Cruz said,‘The key here is putting the public on notice as to how you’re going to proceed,” referring to power issues that could impact remote meeting transmission, if the committee would continue their meeting or if it would adjourn because of the power loss.

Committee Member Mark Hamilton asked Cruz what could have happened if the remote access ended at the most recent meeting on July 15, and if it would have been proper for the Township Committee to continue with their meeting, even if the remote transmission ceased.

See the full video discussion below among all members:

Cruz said it would not have been appropriate at the July 15 meeting, because the public wasn’t on notice then of alternate options.

At the July 8 meeting, had the power gone down, the public was put on notice in advance that the meeting would have been able to adjourn at 11 p.m., the discussion continuing, in the event of an outage.

“The key is putting the public on notice as how you’re going to proceed further, in the event that there were a power outage,” Cruz added.

There were other concerns brought up, with Ewald asking if speakers could be prioritized, with township residents having the right to speak first. Cruz said that permission was already incorporated within the Township Committee’s bylaws.

Committee Member Ashley Felice suggested some fine-tuning to the remote policy, asking if Zoom callers could be limited to the number of times they could speak, versus those attending in-person. Cruz said all attendees need to be "treated equally," whether they're attending in person or remotely.

“I just want to keep the emphasis on people coming in person,” Felice said. “I think it gets them involved more, but I still want to provide this alternative Zoom option as well.”

“I think it’s valuable for people to come,” she clarified to Township Clerk Greg LaConte when he asked for more detail. “I want to keep that priority.”

Felice and Hamilton pointed out that prior to the pandemic, back-and-forth exchanges often took place, that are not always been possible on Zoom. They asked if that format would return. Cruz said that was a policy decision among Township Committee members, pertaining to an orderly meeting.

“There should be order to a meeting whether it’s in-person or by Zoom,” Cruz said.

He said should the Township Committee decide to respond to an audience member speaking on Zoom, they must do so in an orderly way, permitting members of the public to get their questions in at once, as part of the five minute, per-person rule.

The Township Committee members, LaConte and also Administrator Bob Hoffman also discussed whether it was more orderly for speakers to have a full five minutes at once, with Township Committee members being given the opportunity to respond following each speaker’s turn at the microphone. Hoffman said the “five minute rule” permits residents time to “articulate all of their concerns,” followed by a response from the committee, which is an improvement from what happened at meetings in pre-pandemic times in 2019, he said.

“I believe the process that’s in place now was better than in 2019 and that it should continue,” Hoffman said. “There might be a tweak that would be required in the future.”

LaConte said prior to the five minute rule was a “three minute rule,” for speakers, though he added that was never really enforced, with some people at the microphone for up to 20 minutes. Others would get back on line and speak at the microphone several times during the same meeting, he said.

Questions or comments about this story? Have a news tip? Contact me at: jennifer.miller@patch.com.