Share This Article
As we emerge from the shadows of the pandemic, it’s time to reassess how we conduct public meetings in Sudbury. In that time Zoom became indispensable, allowing people to continue working, learning, and holding important discussions without leaving their homes. For our town of Sudbury, this platform enabled public meetings to persist amid unprecedented uncertainty. Unfortunately, this technique has continued for convenience over safety, harming the public good.
Massachusetts law does allow public bodies to hold Zoom meetings until March 31, 2025 under extended temporary provisions. However, regardless of allowances we need to reassess this approach for the following reasons:
1. Rebuilding Community Connection
One of the most profound losses during the pandemic was the sense of community. Public meetings are not just about disseminating information; they are about fostering engagement, debate, and collaboration. In-person interactions build trust and cooperation. Physical presence enables spontaneous discussions, non-verbal communication and connections that Zoom simply cannot replicate.
In recent years the Town invested heavily in technology to hold hybrid meetings at various locations, ensuring maximum engagement and SudburyTV to broadcast sessions.
What benefit do these physical locations serve if we fail to utilize them?
2. Ensuring Equitable Participation
While Zoom increased accessibility for some, it also simultaneously excluded others. Not all residents have reliable internet access or the technological proficiency to participate in remote meetings. Moreover, certain demographic groups, such as the elderly, may find virtual platforms intimidating or inaccessible.
By transitioning to in-person and hybrid meetings, we ensure that all voices, including those of the elderly and technologically disadvantaged, can be heard.
3. Enhancing Transparency and Accountability
Public meetings serve as a check on local government, ensuring transparency and accountability. In-person meetings allow for better observation of body language and non-verbal cues, which are crucial for understanding the full context of discussions and decisions. It’s easier to gauge sincerity, detect evasiveness, and hold officials accountable when you are in the same room. When residents join the meeting and cannot be seen by our local officials, it’s that much easier to dismiss critical questions or concerns that deserve to be heard. A resident’s concerns were recently dismissed because they couldn’t be seen, which wouldn’t happen in-person.
Ending remote-only meetings enhances the integrity of the democratic process and fosters a greater sense of trust and transparency from residents.
4. Improving Meeting Dynamics and Engagement
Remote-only meetings suffer from technical issues, disruptions, and “Zoom fatigue.” These factors can lead to decreased engagement and effectiveness. In-person and hybrid meetings create a more dynamic and focused environment. Attendees are less likely to be distracted and more inclined to participate actively with the immediacy and directness of face-to-face communication improving the quality of discussions and decisions.
At the recent Community Preservation Committee (CPC) public hearing on December 19th, town residents faced these issues directly. Participants couldn’t see others, chat was disabled, and many left feeling unrecognized.
A deep concern was the format that included a predefined meeting end time – an approach enabled through a remote setting. Whether intentional or not, I was left with the personal impression the meeting was prolonged so as to limit the time for residents to voice concerns over certain CPC fund applications. The repeated reminder that the meeting would be ending promptly at 9:00PM, while acknowledging the number of non-board attendees, furthered that message. Understanding that having no parameters in place is simply not feasible, I do believe the 3-minute time limit per speaker, while also not allowing repeated messaging, should have allowed everyone the chance to speak.
Of the nearly 20 Pine Lakes residents who I personally know were in attendance and wished to have their views expressed on a highly controversial Sudbury Housing Authority (SHA) application, only 6 were given the opportunity to speak.
The meeting hit a crescendo when a Pine Lakes resident was ejected from the remote meeting by Planning Department Staff, without warning, announcement, or involvement from the committee. Again, something not possible with an in-person format. This incident raises questions about compliance with Open Meeting Law and is something the Town should investigate and address in swift fashion. These actions simply cannot be how our local government acts.
While remote meetings served a vital purpose in the past, we need to adapt and take accountability to transition back to requiring in-person space for open meetings, while allowing hybrid features for those with physical restrictions to participate. This reaffirms our commitment to the inclusive, engaged, and vibrant community we all have responsibility to protect and see prosper.