Pa. bill would regulate remote meetings
Council questions rules in legislative proposal
NORTH WALES >> A bill up for discussion in the state legislature could change the way municipalities hold online meetings, and one local council already has plenty of questions.
North Wales officials took up talks Tuesday night on the proposed House Bill 1318 regarding remote meetings, while vowing to return in person next month.
“The legislature has taken action to remove the governor’s emergency declaration, which allowed remote meetings, among other things,” said council President Jim Sando.
“The house bill that’s in front of you does make a change to remote meetings. It does not allow for full board remote meetings; it does codify specifically how members can participate remotely,” he said.
When COVID-19 arrived in Montgomery County in March 2020, North Wales and all other local municipalities began holding public meetings online via streaming video, with links posted beforehand and online participation monitored and moderated by staff, in North Wales’ case by borough Manager Chris
“The legislature has taken action to remove the governor’s emergency declaration, which allowed remote meetings, among other things.” — North Wales Borough Council President Jim Sando
tine Hart.
With the state legislature’s actions to end Gov. Tom Wolf’s disaster declaration earlier this month, Sando and borough Solicitor Greg Gifford said Tuesday, the proposed HB1318 is meant to set out rules and regulations for some remote meetings on a permanent basis. Under the draft, some members would be able to take part in public meetings remotely, but only if a quorum is already present at an in-person location.
Solicitor Greg Gifford added that he had heard talk about the bill including exceptions, “if there were weather or other emergencies, you could meet remotely, but this doesn’t seem to include it.” Sando added that the draft bill also includes language allowing members to participate remotely, but the public has to be able to hear that member speak.
“We don’t have to necessarily provide video for that person, but we do need to make sure there is enough clear audio that everyone else, who is physically present, can hear exactly what is being said,” Sando said.
Hart asked if the bill would require the town to hold meetings “in a hybrid” format, with both online and in-person options, and Gifford said it would not.
The draft instead only allows for an absence for reasons of illness, disability, care for the ill, emergency, and/or family or business travel.
“Only if you’re notified of one of those issues, then the hybrid meeting is set up,” Gifford said.
Sando then asked if any member of council would like to make a motion showing the local board’s support for the state bill. Councilwoman Wendy McClure said she thought “based on the way things are right now, in 2021, I think this is antiquated, and my vote will be no,” prompting another round of discussion.
Councilwoman Sally Neiderhiser asked if inperson meetings at borough hall would require social distancing and maskwearing, and Sando said neither would be required “because those restrictions are no longer in place.”
What about vaccination status? “We do not have any ability to monitor the public’s vaccination status,” Sando said, and Hart elaborated.
“We have posted on the door to ask all people that have not been vaccinated, to wear the masks. But it strictly is the honor system. All of those rules have been lifted,” she said.
Councilman Sal Amato asked if the draft bill set out other exceptions: “for instance, if during the winter, all of our heat goes out, and things freeze in borough hall?”
“No, you cannot under borough code — that’s the problem. I thought they were going to fix this. Unfortunately, it does not,” Gifford answered.
Hart added that a longdiscussed upgrade to the audio-video systems in council chambers has been done over the past year, but staff have not yet tried to livestream a meeting.
“We do not currently have the capability to do that, unless we were going to pick somebody to actually run the Zoom meeting, as I do now, and somebody else run the inperson meeting, and then share the screen as well as the overhead in person,” Hart said.
In 2020, the Montgomery County Bar Association changed their bylaws to allow virtual meetings, Gifford added, and can use a variety of devices to do so.
“All we do is, we have an iPad, one time an iPhone with the speaker, other times a computer, and now we have a setup, where all it has to be is that a person that is on there, can hear the meeting going on, can hear everyone, and can communicate,” he said.
Hart added that a meeting with all council members present should present no obstacles, and having one or two call in may be feasible too.
“We can handle an inperson meeting, no problem. Everything is set up and working fine,” she said.
“I do have some challenges that we’d have to overcome if we were going to run a hybrid, but it appears we won’t have to do that, unless one of these situations comes,” Hart said.
Sando suggested council table taking any formal action to support or oppose the bill, given that any changes it makes would likely only take effect 60 days from after it is passed, and council’s July in-person meetings would happen before then.
“Since we’re not clear that this language is here, and since at best this is not going to take effect until sometime in the fall, September at best, we can table this motion,” he said.
Amato asked if there was any way they could send feedback to local lawmakers, and Sando said they could.
“We can certainly communicate with our legislators that we are unclear as to the intent and the specific outcome of the law, as it’s currently written,” he said.
Gifford added that the draft bill does not change current state codes that allow remote meetings during an emergency declaration, and Amato asked if that meant the borough could extend their own local emergency declarations and continue to meet online. Gifford said he thought that reading was correct and would clarify at council’s next meeting.