It is the 21st Century after all…
In the News Journal story this morning on the continuing recovery and rehabilitation of Sussex County Councilman Vance Phillips, and the logistical problems his continued absence is presenting the Council, Sussex County Attorney Everett Moore says that Phillips cannot attend council meetings remotely, by either Skype, teleconference or videoconference because Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act expressly prohibits public bodies whose members are elected from participating via videoconference.
If that is true, that is a provision of the law that needs revision. Indeed, given that this blog and progressives in general throughout our state were quite instrumental in lobbying for the FOIA law, I think I will need it explained to me why and how this provision pertains to transparent government and the disclosure of information.
That does need to be changed and Pronto. Many of the videoconferencing services offer options that let you record and keep copies of these meetings so you can even post them online afterwards. It just seems incredible in this age that you can disrupt the business of a local government just because one of its members is temporarily incapacitated.
I don’t know why there isn’t already an understood exception to laws like these for situations like Vance Phillips. As long as the spirit of law is met, the letter of the law shouldn’t matter.
Dana,
Such an understood exception doesn’t exist because so many governing bodies in DE have such a poor record of abusing transparency. I shudder to think what would happen if the UD or DSU trustees were allowed that kind of loophole. They already routinely hold key committee meetings with almost no one physically present, even when such meetings are ostensibly “open to the public.”
I’ve sat in meetings where there were five trustees on a committee and three of them were on speaker phone.
Oddly, appointed boards don’t have this issue. So the Sussex County Planning & Zoning Commission could have a teleconference, properly noticed and open to the public – but not the Sussex County Council.
I really can’t think of why that might be.
Steve, I fail to see why someone participating by teleconference in a public meeting makes the meeting less transparent.
It looks like Republican Councilmen Sam Wilson, Mike Vincent and George Cole want to wait until Republican Councilman Vance Phillips clears up his affairs in Virginia and returns to Sussex to vote on important issues.
Dana
I guess I didn’t pick my words correctly; maybe I’m not after transparency. Let me give you and example. We have an Educational Affairs Committee that is effectively the final body that hears appeals of promotion and tenure for our faculty, and also deals with some disciplinary issues. There is something essential missing, I think, when an individual is there to testify in an attempt to gain this committee’s support to overturn a prior decision if the majority of the people to whom you are testifying to aren’t actually present.
Most of us have attended meetings by phone before, and most of us know that we are multi-tasking and not concentrating on the subject at hand as thoroughly as we would be if sitting there. In another context (not DSU to be clear) I attended such a meeting and the person responsible for making the decision was not only not there, but was driving down the interstate while listening to my report. What percentage of his attention did I have?
Further, there’s a real issue of accountability. Vance is in the hospital or therapy presumably on pain meds and not released. Where’s the grounds for the presumption that he is in fact mentally prepared to attend this meeting. I would argue that if your pain or physical condition is so bad as to prohibit being at such a meeting, then Skype or not maybe you shouldn’t be.
If that’s really Joan Deaver, then I’ve just lost a lot of respect for her. That use of a certain word isn’t even slick or sly by half, Joan, especially when he’s not in Virginia any more. Not cool. If you have proof, then out with it. Otherwise, I really thought you were better than that.
yeah – well check out her FB post – says the same thing
not cool………..
and THAT IS her on FB
And Joan – If you’re objecting to this, why not put your objection on the record at the meeting, rather than commenting via FB and DL?
There can’t be a public hearing on the adequate public facilities ordinance until you re-introduce it, anyway.
Joan Deaver wants to push ahead as quickly as possible because it suits her agenda. Assuming Vance and Joan would vote on opposite sides of land use issues, this works out for Joan because it very much increases the chances of tied votes, and tied votes are just as good as rejecting change of zoning applications.
Yah, but there are very few zoning apps coming through that would work like that. Most these days are minor, non-controversial items.
The major exception is the yard waste center that came up Tuesday. And because Cole recused himself, that would likely fail if a vote was held tomorrow – anything has to get three votes to pass, and it’s unlikely Deaver and Wilson will agree on anything. But it’s also unlikley that it will come to a vote. Deaver could make a motion to hold a vote, but Wilson could delay the vote until Vance returns just by not seconding her motion. Vincent, as the presiding officer, can’t second motions. So it’s going to be in limbo for a while.