Show Up or Clam Up?

County board debates remote-meeting and public-access practices.

The pandemic changed the way local governments conducted meetings by offering remote options for constituents to participate from afar.

Those alternate practices were largely authorized by emergency declarations. Now that Door County government allowed its declaration to expire in July, the Door County Administrative Committee has revisited the practice of remote meetings.

That group’s recommendations were debated on the floor Tuesday morning during the Door County Board of Supervisors’ monthly meeting. The proposed amendment to the rules would prohibit supervisors or committee members from attending meetings remotely unless they reside on Washington Island. Other permissible remote attendance would apply to those who must participate in hearings before the Resource Planning Committee, for example, but cannot possibly do it in person or without significant difficulty.    

The supervisors largely left those recommendations alone, instead debating the public-access portion. Under that proposed rule, the county would “endeavor to maintain a remote, view-only option for public access” to advance the purpose of government openness and transparency. That view-only component, however, would not allow constituents to participate at all, such as during the public-comment period.

That didn’t sit well with a number of supervisors. Supervisor Kara Counard said the past year taught them that meetings could offer more opportunity for public comment with accessible remote options, and the county board had achieved that. 

“It seems weird to me to take it away,” she said.

Supervisors Susan Kohout, Nissa Norton, Megan Lundahl and Bob Bultman all commented in favor of continuing the practice of remote participation as a way to facilitate more community involvement. Norton said remote-participation options made participation accessible for those with physical or mental disabilities. Bultman added that it’s difficult for people who work during the day to attend county board and committee meetings that are held during their work hours.

“If they can break away for 15 minutes to call in, I don’t see any downside,” he said.

The downside, according to those who favored the view-only option, was how remote call-ins emboldened constituents to say things they may not otherwise say if they were speaking in person. 

“Some individuals feel if they’re going to be attacked, they would like to see the person in the room rather than have them call in and not being able to see their face,” said Administrator Ken Pabich.

Lundahl said, “That feels a bit muddy to me as a reason,” especially given that texts, emails and letters are not face-to-face encounters, but Supervisor Todd Thayse disagreed.

“I do know this whole Zoom attendance has made a lot of brave people and made people bold to say things they wouldn’t necessarily say in meetings,” Thayse said, adding that “if it’s important enough, I think people will find a way to make their comments.”

Supervisor Richard “Biz” Virlee also spoke in favor of the view-only option, and Supervisor David Enigl argued that by his interpretation, remote participation wasn’t even allowed by statutes. 

County board Chair Dave Lienau said they were attempting to return to pre-COVID practices while still allowing greater access with the view-only option. He suggested they could adopt the view-only public-access option and then revisit it in November. Lundahl suggested they leave it as it is, with remote participation allowed, and revisit that in November.

The proposed amendment was introduced for discussion only, so nothing was decided. Pabich said they’d take the feedback to the Administrative Committee for further discussion next month.