The New Look Of North Shore Open Public Meetings

SWAMPSCOTT, MA — After more than a year of watching heads in boxes on computer screens and examining the book collections in the living room of a city councilor or school committee member, many North Shore boards are back to meeting in person.

But not all meetings will look the same across the region after Gov. Charlie Baker signed a bill to extend coronavirus crisis-related rules allowing for remote participation in open public meetings until April 1, 2022.

Salem, for instance, is keeping its board and commission meetings fully remote, while Beverly and Peabody City Councils are meeting in person and providing a Zoom option for public comment or representative participation.

The Salem City Council will determine whether it continues to meet remotely or in a hybrid model. Patch was informed Friday morning that the Salem City Council will meet in person at its next meeting on Thursday.

In Marblehead, it will be up to the discretion of each board. While in Swampscott, there will be a hybrid model as well. Danvers recently resumed in-person meetings and will be reevaluating options for remote access now that the extension has been approved.

While Peabody City Councilors — among the first to welcome the public back into meetings at City Hall early in May — celebrated the return of in-person discourse, proponents of the remote meetings argue it has increased public participation beyond the select hearty few who would make their way to sit and watch a three-hour Select Board discussion live every other week.

"The ability to follow government processes remotely opens up participation to those who would otherwise face barriers like transportation, work schedules and child care," Salem Mayor Kim Driscoll posted in advocating for the extension early this month. "Let's keep government open to all via remote participation and apply the Open Meeting Law to all government branches."

"The only people who benefit from going back to the old way are the people who used to dominate in-person meetings — mainly people with time, lack of other obligations, and a vested interest," agreed Salem Ward 5 City Councilor Josh Turiel at the time. "Remote participation allows more democracy."

According to Dominick Pangallo, Driscoll’s Chief of Staff, from 2016 to 2018 about half of all public comments at Salem City Council meetings came from just 20 residents in a city of more than 4o,000 people.

In Swampscott, the Select Board held its first hybrid meeting since the onset of the pandemic in March 2020 on Wednesday with the public invited to participate through Zoom as the board met in-person at Swampscott High. Meetings were also aired live on the town's Facebook channel and Cable Access Channel.

"There is a possibility there may still be some fully virtual meetings of the Select Board if necessary," Swampscott Communications Director Allie Fiske told Patch, "as well as some meetings that happen in unconventional outdoor spaces to accommodate a wide range of individuals."

She said locations will always be announced in advance on the Select Board agenda.

Beverly City Clerk Lisa Kent told Patch that Beverly will likely continue hybrid meetings in September but that the City Council is set to discuss the matter at next week's meeting.

Peabody City Clerk Allyson Danforth said Peabody will allow a councilor to participate remotely as long as the in-person attendance reaches a quorum.

Under state-issued guidance on the extension, however, a live quorum remains unnecessary to hold an official meeting.

"A brief discussion was held regarding the use of Zoom until the end of the year, but I suspect it will be permanent," Danforth told Patch.

Marblehead will post its schedule of which meetings are in person and which offer a remote option on the town website.

State-issued guidance released on Wednesday also includes a strong suggestion that communities allow for remote participation whenever possible.

"The new law provides that a municipal public body that, for reasons of economic hardship and despite best efforts, is unable to provide alternative means of public access that will enable the public to follow the proceedings in real-time, may instead post a full and complete transcript, recording, or other comprehensive records on its website as soon as practicable after the meeting," the guidance said. "In light of the various free and low-cost technologies that could be used to provide the public with real-time access, the Division of Open Government strongly recommends that a municipal public body consults with our office before determining that it is unable to provide the public with real-time access to a meeting."

Did you find this article useful? Invite a friend to subscribe to Patch.

(Scott Souza is a Patch field editor covering Beverly, Danvers, Marblehead, Peabody, Salem and Swampscott. He can be reached at [email protected]. Twitter: @Scott_Souza.)