New Haven Register (New Haven, CT)
Keep public engaged with government
General Assembly agrees to optional municipal virtual meetings
It’s hard to believe the Connecticut General Assembly’s legislative session ends this week. Since it’s an abbreviated springtime session and it is state election season, lawmakers will be doing the critical things that matter this time of year: fundraising and campaigning. But there have been a number of bills the General Assembly has recently considered, especially the budget and tax deal to extend and create certain state tax cuts.
A likely overlooked bill that our state Legislature recently approved is House Bill 5269, which allows public entities to decide to continue with virtual meetings. Because of the pandemic, various agencies, including at the local level, conducted online public meetings. Ultimately, municipal boards and commissions would get to decide this option through this legislation.
Some may consider direct democracy (or residents engaging in the decision-making process) should be solely inperson. It’s a traditional approach, especially since New Englanders cherish having their voice heard in local matters. Partaking in community issues can make a difference, but the ways of doing so varies by municipality and approach. Because Connecticut has 169 localities, some have a public comment hour before a local legislative body. Others restrict or do not allow for direct participation while some municipalities have representative town meetings.
Attending public meetings, especially local hearings and workshops, should be a priority for constituents. Officials need to know and hear from residents about their concerns on pending proposals. Most importantly, direct democracy in New England, demands participation in various forms. Attending meetings in-person and now online is a start. Petitioning, lobbying, testifying and writing correspondences to public officials are additional forms of direct engagement, as well.
But there should be no question that having so many municipal meetings online during the pandemic transformed the overall participation process in our modern era. Some municipalities saw an increase of residents listening and engaging in local boards and commission meetings. In fact, the Advisory Committee on Intergovernmental Relations discovered that 90-percent of residents polled were supportive of virtual and hybrid meetings so they can choose to watch virtually or attend in-person.
For the Journal of Civic Information, I had the opportunity to study with my colleague Professor Jodie Gil about the effects of online local meetings. Connecticut’s towns and cities varied about conducting their public sessions and hearings. A number of officials and constituents wanted some virtual aspect for their local legislative meetings. Some stressed that even having a hybrid option could be impactful for public participation purposes.
Too often many of these public sessions and hearings are held at night and few residents are able to attend because of work and family obligations. Political scientist Frank Bryan offered in his
New England case study about Vermont’s direct democracy that few mothers were able to participate in evening meetings because childcare coverage can be challenging.
There’s also some concern that not everyone has online access or they do not have the technology to participate remotely. Many municipalities may also not have the most ideal conditions for virtual meetings. Bridgeport, for example, is only having in-person meetings because of their council chambers acoustics.
But if local boards and commissions can decide the option that best suits their meetings, it’s an additional step to more engagement. House Bill 5269 allows municipalities to do so and it passed the state Senate 25-11 and the state House of Representatives 101-40.
Hopefully local boards and commissions will remain innovative about hybrid considerations for their meetings. The more constituents are involved in the policymaking process, the better — especially for New England democracy’s sake.
Many municipalities may also not have the most ideal conditions for virtual meetings.