| Joanne Cole |
The Select Board met on very short notice Thursday for an emergency meeting to consider two time-sensitive Covid matters. One was whether to allow boards and committees to meet remotely—by Zoom—because of the omicron surge, instead of only in-person as the board directed in June. The other item involved a draft Town Covid policy, something the board had recently asked Town Manager Christine Landes to develop.
But it was the question of remote meetings that appeared to prompt the January 6 emergency session.
Ever since the Legislature gave the green light to towns to hold remote meetings post-emergency—provided each town adopts a remote policy—some New Gloucester residents, including serving on town committees, have requested either pure Zoom-type meetings or “hybrid meetings.” (In a hybrid meeting some attendees meet in-person while others simultaneously participate remotely by phone or other means.) Reasons offered include personal or family health concerns, public health considerations, or simply to restore the high levels of public participation Zoom enabled.
“There’s a lot of emails and phone calls constantly asking if people can meet by Zoom,” board chair Peter Bragdon said in the January 6 meeting. “And we had a meeting canceled over it,” he added, indicating urgency.
Apparently, with omicron surging, concerns from committee members feeling unsafe with others unmasked close by had come to a head. (Unlike some nearby towns, the board has declined to require or recommend masks in town buildings.) And as Bragdon mentioned, a committee meeting—it was the Land Management Planning Committee—was canceled over the masked-unmasked no-Zoom-option impasse. That prompted Town Manager Christine Landes to immediately request an emergency meeting so the board could consider authorizing remote meetings, perhaps temporarily through the winter surge.
Landes had drafted a remote meeting policy but instead opened by reading a prepared statement, not her usual practice. Citing Cumberland County data and the CDC, she described the surging omicron variant, faster-moving and more infectious than previous Covid strains and expected to soon rise to 95% of new cases, and fueling the “intense burden” already experienced in area hospitals, she said.
“You all, as leaders of this community,” Landes continued, addressing the board directly, “are being asked to consider making some decisions, even if temporary, to protect staff, board and committee members, volunteers and most importantly, the residents of this community over the next few weeks.” She added, “Some of these decisions will not be easy nor even popular with some individuals, but now is the time to help push this virus to extinction.” Landes commended town staff and committee members’ dedication to the town and thanked the board for their “consideration and commitment to allowing all to feel safe.”
As it turned out, Landes’ thanks proved to be premature; for the present the board declined to endorse this way to help push the virus to extinction or for all to feel safe. But perhaps January 24 will be the time. That’s when the board decided to revisit the matter, at their next scheduled meeting. In the meantime, no Zoom meetings will be permitted, they agreed unanimously. The board took no action on the second item, involving broader town Covid policy, but instead will also consider that on January 24.
Remote meetings. When it was their turn to discuss remote meetings, the board quickly pivoted away from Landes’ emphasis on health and safety, never to return. Conversation focused on practical considerations: how well Zoom had or hadn’t worked before, the technological barriers to doing hybrid meetings given the constraints of the Meetinghouse, residents’ internet access.
Members’ general preference for in-person meetings was clear. Steve Hathorne said, “I am not a fan of Zoom.” He acknowledged that public participation increased with Zoom but also recalled inappropriate on-camera behavior. Tammy Donovan said Zoom “was not effective” and contrasted the traditional robust in-person annual town meeting with its lightly attended Zoom counterpart. Member Dustin Ward wanted to offer an option for those who don’t feel comfortable coming in person but thought too many technological challenges and details need to be worked out.
Bragdon suggested that several key committees—the Select Board, Planning Board, Budget Committee, Capital Improvements Program Committee, and Land Management Planning Committee—continue to meet in person but other committees be permitted to meet by Zoom if their members prefer. Vice chair Paul Larrivee wasn’t comfortable drawing a line separating some committees from others. Perhaps committees need not meet so often, Donovan suggested.
As an alternative, Bragdon said the board could authorize the manager to set up Zoom again for boards and committees for the next few weeks. “If we wanted to do something temporarily until we can iron this out,” he said, “we could do that easy enough.” The town had done it before: all boards and committees met by Zoom for a year and a half under a town plan, Bragdon noted.
Ward liked the idea of allowing Zoom meetings until the board can more carefully consider a remote meeting policy in February. Steve Hathorne asked why not sooner, the board’s January 24 meeting? Would committees be excused from meeting until then, Larrivee wondered, “Or are we saying, ‘No, you have to meet’?” Unclear. Evidently, individual committee members will be left to decide for themselves whether to attend. Six committees and nine meetings were on the town calendar for January 6 through 24.
What was clear is that no Zoom meetings of any kind will be allowed before January 24, when the board will revisit the topic.
Draft Town Covid policy. As for Landes’ draft Town Covid policy, the board will consider that on January 24 as well. Introducing the topic at the January 6 meeting, Peter Bragdon said, “We’ve had some Covid concerns – we’ll leave it at that – within staffing.” He offered no specifics on the number of any employee cases or length of any absences.
At a previous meeting, board members touched on topics a town Covid policy might address: employee paid time off, their return-to-work protocols, masks. Whether and to what extent provisions of a town Covid policy might also apply to committee members and volunteers is unclear. Past board discussions suggest that, in some contexts at least, volunteers are considered as if they were employees.
At this meeting, Landes noted that the last time town staff were required to wear masks, some “exemptions” were given for staff who are not visible to the public. If the board adopts a policy, it should apply “across the board for all staff members, no matter where you are,” Landes said.
Their preliminary discussion suggested that some board members are unlikely to favor a mask requirement for employees. Recently the board declined to require masks for people coming into the town office. At this meeting, Tammy Donovan said, “I think it should be up to the staff. If they want to wear a mask, they wear a mask. If they don’t want to wear a mask, they don’t. I don’t have an issue with that.” Steve Hathorne agreed.
Whether that view will prevail, and how other Covid policy questions affecting staff, committee members, and other residents will be resolved, await the board’s January 24 meeting, in person, at the Meetinghouse.
Video of the January 6 special emergency meeting can be viewed at this link. Select Board meeting agendas and supporting documents can be found at this link.
