Laserfiche WebLink
<br />members who travel or are unable to attend, with an opportunity to participate, and that it has <br />nothing to do with having a physical quorum. <br /> <br />Ms. Forster agreed that the law did not differentiate with respect to the type of meeting that it <br />should be applied to and that it also did not require the implementation of a policy. She stated that <br />one paragraph stating that the City will allow videoconferencing if needed, was all that was <br />necessary. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow stated that he does think the City would want to have the opportunity to use <br />videoconferencing even though he does not believe that it would be utilized on a frequent basis. <br />He stated that one of the major frustrations with videoconferencing is getting bounced off, so that is <br />an area that needs to be examined by the administration in order to determine how that can be <br />avoided. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe concurred that videoconferencing should not be utilized in closed sessions. He then <br />questioned whether the City would be obligated to provide him with the equipment necessary to <br />conduct such a conference since he does not own any of his own? <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch advised Mr. Sharpe that he could conduct a videoconference from anyone’s <br />computer. <br /> <br />Ms. Carr stated that Council voted to provide the Mayor with a laptop and the School Board has <br />provided all of its members with an iPad, so some similar mechanism could be put in place for <br />Councilmembers. She stated that no one should be left out of the process; that everyone should <br />be trained on how to conduct a conference so that they feel comfortable performing this task, and <br />that there should also be a setup similar to the one currently being utilized by the School District, all <br />of which the City’s IT Department has the capacity to do. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft stated that while there seems to be a consensus on closed meetings it really would be <br />nice to say that for purposes of a quorum only Councilmembers who are physically present will be <br />counted, just to ensure that there is a rule in place. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow stated that if his vote counts he does not understand why he would not be included in the <br />tally for a quorum? Mr. Kraft stated that his rationale is based on the fact that without a quorum <br />there is no meeting. Mr. Crow stated that in his opinion if the statute asserts that his vote is good <br />enough by videoconference then his presence should also be counted no matter where he is. He <br />stated that the bigger problem is really a practical one, and that is whether the City’s system is <br />equipped to handle numerous feeds, since there are three or four members of Council who utilized <br />their laptops. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft noted that Council’s existing rules state that if a member is not in attendance then their <br />vote does not count. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch asked Ms. Forster if this amendment necessitated the need for a new policy or <br />whether it could be addressed in Council’s rules. Ms. Forster stated that the amendment could be <br />phased in to Council’s rules since it does not require a separate policy or ordinance. She then <br />advised Mayor Welsch that the City Council has the authority to make its own rules. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft stated that for the purpose of those residents who will be sitting in the audience he does <br />not believe that it would be fair to have a meeting if Council is unable to physically drum up four of <br />its members. <br /> <br />Ms. Forster stated that her interpretation of the statute is that if you are allowed to attend the <br />meeting and vote by videoconference then technically you are present. <br /> <br /> <br />