Revolutionizing Public Engagement: The Debate Over Mandatory Hybrid Meetings in Massachusetts

A heated debate is brewing in Massachusetts, pitting the need for accessible government against the financial realities faced by smaller municipalities. The central question: should hybrid meetings – combining in-person and remote participation – be mandatory statewide?

Massachusetts’ Open Meeting Law currently permits, but doesn’t require, hybrid meetings. A temporary provision added in 2020, allowing remote participation, is set to expire at the end of March.Governor Maura Healey aims to make this provision permanent but proposes keeping remote access optional, citing cost concerns for smaller towns and cities.

Dianna Hu, chairperson of the Boston Center for Autonomous living’s board of trustees, strongly advocates for mandatory hybrid meetings. A software engineer who previously couldn’t attend meetings due to her wheelchair use and busy schedule, Hu emphasizes the importance of equal access. “Whether you are sitting in a wheelchair, whether you are with a chronic health condition that makes it tough to get out of bed, or whether you’re a caregiver, whether you’re a parent, every member of the public deserves to have access to the meetings that are defining the way our government runs, the way that our society runs,” Hu stated.

Hu draws a parallel between remote meeting access and physical accessibility improvements mandated by the Americans with disabilities Act.“It’s not as if municipalities have the flexibility to decide whether a wheelchair is allowed to enter a government building,” she said, highlighting the rights guaranteed under the ADA.

State Representative Antonio Cabral has proposed a bill to make hybrid meetings mandatory, arguing for statewide uniformity. “I think there ought to be uniformity across the state.Everybody needs to comply and follow the same way of doing an open meeting law or doing a public hearing,” Cabral said.

However, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing cities and towns, opposes a mandate. Executive director Adam Chapdelaine calls it “financially and practically infeasible,” citing the numerous boards and committees in many communities and limited resources. Healey’s proposal offers funding through grant programs,but Chapdelaine argues that even with funding,a mandate would be “a burden.” “We’re just saying that mandating it in all circumstances doesn’t match up with the reality of operating local government,” Chapdelaine added.

Advocates suggest addressing the financial concerns by specifying which meetings should be hybrid, a strategy employed by Greenfield, Massachusetts, which recently passed an ordinance requiring hybrid meetings for a majority of its city meetings. Matthew Conway, spokesperson for Greenfield’s mayor, explained, “The ordinance lists specifically each meeting that’s included within the hybrid recorded format. So it’s not every city meeting that takes place,but it is indeed a good majority of them.”

“We have a lot of working parents in town who don’t have the luxury of being able to, you know, attend a meeting that’s three in the afternoon on a weekday.”

Zach Trulby-Wright, resident of Milford

The debate coincides with growing calls for greater government openness, highlighted by voter support for auditing the Massachusetts Legislature. Geoff Foster, executive director of Common Cause Massachusetts, noted, “I think residents, not just in Massachusetts, but across the country, are looking for ways to have greater confidence in their government, especially at the local level.” A 2023 survey by several nonprofits, including Common Cause, found that over half of Massachusetts’ city councils, select boards, and school committees already conduct hybrid or live-streamed meetings.

Milford resident Zach Trulby-Wright, who chairs the Democratic Town Committee, points to resistance to change as a significant factor beyond budgetary concerns. Milford’s current system, offering hybrid access on a case-by-case basis, is “very challenging for people to get accommodations where they need them,” Trulby-Wright said. He believes increased participation would curb the power of leaders to “rubber stamp” decisions. “The hybrid option is only for people who have, you know, preexisting conditions [and] have approval from the select board to participate hybrid,” Trulby-Wright explained. “It’s a sort of ambiguous approval process.” Milford’s town administrator did not respond to requests for comment.

While acknowledging the potential benefits of increased participation, Justin de Benedictis-Kessner, an associate professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, cautions against overstating the democratizing effect of remote meetings. he cites a 2021 study showing that online meeting participants “look largely the same as the people who participate in public meetings that are in person,” suggesting that broader outreach and civic education are also necessary to achieve greater portrayal.

Katherine Golub, the city councilor who proposed Greenfield’s hybrid meeting ordinance, underscores the critical role of online access. “In a time when democracy is threatened and curtailed by the federal government, our state leaders have an obligation to do everything in their power to safeguard public participation at the local level,” Golub stated.

headline: Shaping the Future of Governance: The Case for Mandatory Hybrid Meetings in Massachusetts

Opening Statement:

Could mandatory hybrid meetings be the key to democratizing government participation in Massachusetts? As debates continue on whether this change should be compulsory, experts weigh in on the transformative potential and challenges that lie ahead.

Interview with Dr. Emily Carter, Expert in Public Policy and Civic Engagement

Q: Dr. Carter, the debate around mandatory hybrid meetings in Massachusetts is intensifying. From your viewpoint, what makes this a crucial turning point in public governance?

Dr. Carter:

The move towards mandatory hybrid meetings in Massachusetts marks a meaningful shift in how governments can engage with their constituents. At its core,this initiative is about accessibility and inclusivity.historically, public governance has operated with minimal adaptations to accommodate all citizens due to logistical and financial constraints. Hybrid meetings embody a progressive step towards bridging those gaps. For instance, Dianna Hu’s advocacy highlights how remote access could parallel physical accessibility advancements seen under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This approach ensures that everyone, irrespective of mobility or schedule constraints, has the opportunity to participate in civic life. In essence,its about ensuring equal access to democracy,something historically unyielding against the needs of diverse populations.

Q: Some argue that mandating hybrid meetings is financially and practically unfeasible. How can municipalities address these concerns without sacrificing inclusivity?

Dr. Carter:

It’s true that financial considerations are a ample barrier to implementing hybrid meetings statewide. However, pilot programs and selective mandates can demonstrate feasibility and effectiveness without overwhelming resources. Such as, Greenfield, Massachusetts, has pioneered an approach by specifying key meetings that must be hybridized. This strategic focus prevents blanket investments and allows municipalities to scale as they become technologically and financially ready. Funding through state grants and federal assistance can also mitigate financial burdens. Additionally, involving the public and civic tech innovators in designing cost-effective solutions can lead to enduring practices that respect both fiscal realities and the basic need for participation.

Q: How might increased public participation through hybrid meetings alter the governance landscape in future years?

Dr. carter:

Increased public participation facilitated by hybrid meetings can substantially alter governance by enhancing transparency and trust. According to Geoff Foster of Common Cause Massachusetts, public engagement strengthens governmental accountability, especially at the local level. Imagine a scenario where more diverse voices contribute to discussions and decision-making processes — this inclusivity can lead to more comprehensive policy outcomes that reflect the population’s needs. moreover, technology can extend beyond hybrid meetings to innovative platforms for real-time feedback and consultation, fundamentally reshaping citizen-government interaction. Addressing concerns such as digital divide and ensuring equitable tech access must be part of this evolution to truly democratize participation.

Q: Given the concerns about maintaining effective engagement and avoiding the assumption that remote participation automatically expands reach, how can governments ensure that hybrid meetings truly democratize access?

Dr. Carter:

That’s an excellent point. Hybrid meetings alone do not guarantee broader engagement — targeted outreach and education are critical. Funding should also be allocated for civic education initiatives that empower citizens to engage meaningfully in these digital spaces. Engagement strategies should also focus on marginalized communities, ensuring that the tools and platforms developed are user-amiable and accessible.As noted by Justin de Benedictis-Kessner, holding remote meetings isn’t a panacea; broadening participation requires intentional efforts to engage and educate citizens. Furthermore, governments should solicit community feedback to continuously improve the effectiveness and accessibility of their hybrid meeting formats.

Q: What are your key takeaways for local governments considering the adoption of hybrid meeting mandates?

dr. Carter:

For local governments contemplating hybrid meeting mandates, here are some actionable takeaways:

• Start Small, Scale Smartly: Initiate with selective mandates and gather data to refine practices.
• Leverage Funding Opportunities: Utilize state and federal funding to support technological upgrades.
• Focus on Inclusivity: Ensure outreach efforts reach marginalized groups and address digital accessibility.
• Foster Civic Education: Develop citizen-centric education programs to maximize meaningful participation.
• Iterate Based on Feedback: Continuously improve systems based on community input and technological advancements.

Conclusion:

As Massachusetts grapples with the decision to mandate hybrid meetings, the broader implications on civic engagement and democratic principles are undeniable. Local governments must balance practical challenges with the moral imperative to ensure every citizen can access their government. Dr. Carter’s insights underscore the potential for hybrid meetings to serve as a pivotal force in reconstructing more accessible, transparent, and inclusive public governance.

We invite readers to share their thoughts on mandating hybrid meetings and their potential impact on local governance. Join the discussion in the comments or on social media to contribute to this pivotal dialogue.