Councillors intrigued by virtual attendance option
Video conferencing become more of the norm in politics
Could virtual participation in council meetings be the way of the future?
If corporate board governance is any indication, don’t rule it out, said Mayor Jim Diodati.
“Board governance now identifies this. At one time you had to show up in person, now you can show up telephonically through video conferencing,” said Diodati.
“As a matter of fact, in public health (Tuesday) we had members of the Niagara Regional Police bikes and gangs group phone in to answer questions about cannabis legislation and regulations.”
He said board rooms today have state-of-the-art equipment allowing for virtual meetings.
“I can tell you through board governance it’s being addressed, it’s being allowed. This is the way of the future.”
Hamilton council is scheduled to discuss whether councillors in that city should be allowed to take part in council and committee meetings via video or audio links during a governance subcommittee Thursday.
Staff is looking for direction in light of changes to provincial legislation allowing city councillors across Ontario to electronically join in open session meetings.
The legislation stipulates a councillor taking part in a meeting remotely can’t be counted for determining quorum — the legal minimum of members required to make the meeting valid.
Nor will disembodied councillors be allowed to participate in confidential closed-door meetings.
But other than that, councils can decide for themselves whether virtual participants should be recognized as in attendance or permitted to vote.
Diodati said it may be an issue Niagara Falls council and staff weigh in on.
“It definitely will be up to council to consider and staff to weigh in on in terms of a report, so we can weigh the pros and the cons,” he said.
“But you can see technology is changing the way we do everything. We need to be prepared for what’s happening and this is one the things that’s happening — board rooms and board meetings don’t always include everybody being there in person. Oftentimes they’re there by video conferencing because of physical challenges.”
Diodati said he can see the benefits of allowing electronic participation in certain cases.
“Sometimes we need (outside) legal advice. If that lawyer is coming from Toronto, you’re paying for their travel time and to get a professional planner or a professional legal opinion sometimes you need another means of bringing them into the chamber. I can see we’re going toward that direction, but I think nothing beats face-to-face, in-person presence.”
Coun. Kim Craitor said electronic participation at council meetings is a “really innovative” idea.
“In theory I think it’s a good idea,” he said, adding it shouldn’t become a habit for councillors, as physical attendance should still be considered the preferred
method.
“There would have to be a lot of discussion and understanding and having some really strict parameters of how it could work. I think it has some real possibilities … in extreme situations where the input is important and you want it directly coming from the person, but they’re just not able to be there for a very valid reason. Or, it may be a case where you have somebody who has some really scientific or some expertise that we normally wouldn’t be able to get to council that maybe could provide it.”
Coun. Wayne Campbell said he “definitely” sees merit in electronic participation, especially if a councillor is sick, but that it should not become the normal way to communicate.
“When I was sick in February, I could have electronically hooked in. I was sitting there watching the meeting anyways. I find that quite interesting.”