City Council,

 

Recently, the mayor made the decision to shut down online access to the live meetings through Zoom stating that: "In person only meetings worked before and there shouldn't be any problems if people don't have Zoom and people can still get in touch with us".

 

While I understand that one unfortunate incident happened after three successful years of zoom meetings, is it in the best interest of open and public governance to shut out and marginalize the community of citizens who simply can't go to a meeting? 

 

In your own Rules of Procedure, in the very first paragraph, you state: "...to give every person the opportunity to be heard." If you actually desire what your rules of procedure states - to give every person the opportunity to be heard, I would suggest that you don't block such an important method of engagement. 

 

Zoom is important for several groups in our community. This gives those who have other commitments like work, family, or travel, the ability to still participate in the government process. It also gives those that are sick or injured or the elderly the option to speak out and have their voices heard. Additionally, keep in mind that your next generation of leaders grew up being educated on zoom and many of those might prefer to participate remotely. 

 

To summarily take away such an important method of participation is not only dangerous, but it goes against your own rules of procedure. With all due respect to the mayor, I feel that to take measures to limit open governance is not only harmful to the citizens, but the optics to your constituents make it appear that you in fact do not want engagement. 

 

One argument that the mayor might have, which I disagree with, is that people can simply email if they can't be there. This is counterintutive because, the live process of giving comments allows the person giving the comments to adjust their comments based on what they've heard others discuss. In real time. Email doesn't have this benefit. Email is simply before or after the fact and is not the interactive measure that being involved in a live proceeding affords. If the speaker on zoom already hears another member make his or her points, then the zoom member can choose to reiterate those points, disagree with, or make other points. Email doesn't hold the same weight because it's not the topic at hand being debated. It just stands on its own without the benefit of in the moment discussions.

 

If the city doesn't feel secure in their ability to safeguard zoom, I would suggest researching ways that other cities have safeguarded. Could there be a 3 second voice delay as they have on the radio? Could the clerk verify a form of government issued identification prior to opening the microphone. Could they switch to a different platform with more security features. These are the questions that you need to ask to ensure that your mission of having all voices heard is held true.

 

Kindly in community and open governance,

 

Jason