Laserfiche WebLink
<br />carry out this process. Ms. Forster stated that no additional equipment would be needed since <br />Skype is a free program that can be utilized on any laptop. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow questioned whether the individual attending via videoconference would have the ability to <br />see their colleagues on the screen? Ms. Forster stated that a camera is used to adjust visuals. Mr. <br />Crow asked Ms. Forster whether any outreach had been made to the U City School District to <br />determine what process they are using to conduct video-conferencing. Ms. Forster stated that the <br />Missouri School Board Association, which most of the public school districts are members of, are <br />looking to the Missouri Municipal League’s policy. She stated that the issue of complete prohibition <br />has been raised by several school districts and the consensus is that districts should allow some <br />type of videoconferencing by their members. Ms. Forster stated that everyone is relying on the <br />standard language of making it accessible and then trying to figure out what, if any, limitations <br />should be imposed. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr stated that yesterday she had been informed by Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal that in no <br />way was this law meant to be restrictive, and in order to avoid any legal ramifications the School <br />District had imposed no restrictions. She stated that she had also asked the Senator for her <br />interpretation of the term emergency, which she foresaw as some type of illness, work-related <br />activity or even one’s inability to travel to the meeting. Ms. Carr stated that this amendment was <br />vetoed by the Governor and overridden by a two-thirds vote of the Senate, and although she would <br />probably not have much use for this process she is always concerned with a Councilmember’s <br />ability to represent his or her constituents. <br /> <br />Ms. Forster stated that she also had some concerns with respect to the implementation of limits, <br />specifically as it is referenced in Section C, Frequency of Use, which states that, “The <br />governmental body shall not attend more than (blank) meetings via videoconference.” She then <br />asked Council to think about what the penalty would be if someone exceeded this imposed limit. <br />Ms. Forster stated that another concern is that the amendment also sets forth the circumstances for <br />when videoconferencing can be used. But in her opinion since anyone can have an emergency at <br />any time she would not recommend that Council place any restrictions on the number of times that <br />a member can utilize this process or the circumstances under which it can be used. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft stated that the legislature which superseded the Governor’s veto is the same legislature <br />that is now trying to supersede the Governor’s vetoes on federal supremacy laws, so he is not sure <br />that the wisdom of a legislature whose desire is to make this a Christian State is particularly wise. <br />Mr. Kraft then asked Ms. Forster if this amendment simply gives Council the option to utilize this <br />method or whether it was mandated. Ms. Forster stated that it gives Council the option to do so. <br />Mr. Kraft stated that he did not see any real reason to implement this policy since each member <br />only misses about one meeting per year, so the idea of anyone being disenfranchised is somewhat <br />of a moot point. He stated that Congress is full of congressmen who show up every now and then <br />and yet their constituents do not seem to be unrepresented. In its wisdom the legislature has <br />exempted themselves from this rule, so they cannot vote or participate by videoconference at their <br />own hearings, committees or the legislature itself. However, if there is this overwhelming push to <br />do this, then Mr. Kraft stated that he believes that all of the language pertaining to the amendment’s <br />primary purpose should be stricken; that it should clearly not be allowed at closed meetings; that <br />you must have a physical quorum of four members present at all times in order to conduct a <br />meeting and that this process can only be utilized by the City Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster if she was recommending that Section 1, Subparagraph C, pertaining <br />to frequency and purpose be deleted. Ms. Forster stated that that would be her recommendation. <br />Mr. Crow stated that he would be agreeable to doing so and that he also shared similar concerns <br />about closed meetings, although he was not certain that the law allowed you to make that <br />distinction. He stated that while this is a unique law, his belief is that it was designed to provide <br /> <br /> <br />