At the Covid-19 pandemic's outset, local governing bodies, boards and committees had to quickly pivot to remote meetings, learning the word "Zoom" at the same time as they started transferring all business to a computer screen.

Budgets were debated in home offices, selectmen argued with each other in small virtual squares, and motions passed or failed while members muted their kids howling in the background.

Then, this spring, as vaccines were injected into more arms and the virus seemed to slow its rapid pace, towns began to bring back in-person meeting options. Some opted for hybrid meetings - meetings that were in-person but accessible through a livestream or broadcast - while others recorded discussions to post later or even dropped their virtual offerings all together.

But with the delta variant increasing Connecticut's Covid-19 case load once again, some towns may start to reconsider virtual options - or at least the possibility of permanent virtual options.

In Brookfield, First Selectman Steve Dunn left the decision to stay virtual or return to in-person meetings up to boards and committees but said that hybrid is "really hard to do" because of technological issues with microphones and feedback.

Most major boards in Brookfield are back in person, with some, including the Board of Selectmen, Board of Finance and Board of Education continuing to stream and record their meetings.

In New Milford, major meetings, like those of the Town Council, some Board of Finance and public hearings, are back in person and still offering recordings and livestreams. The Board of Education posts recorded videos on the district website.

Mayor Pete Bass said due to the town's new municipal building mask mandate, all attendees and town council members will be masked at an upcoming council meeting regardless of vaccination status.

For now, the town council will continue to meet in person, but Bass said he plans to recommend using some of the federal American Rescue Plan Act funds to bring video technology into the two main meeting rooms at Town Hall.

There is no formal plan to expand Brookfield's meeting coverage to include streaming for all boards and committees, although Dunn expressed support for the idea.

"I would like to see more of our committees recorded and streamed, but that involves expense," he said.

He called permanent virtual capabilities an "aspirational goal" for now.

By the numbers

Experts say the ability to conduct virtual meetings, or even allow virtual attendance, has expanded access to local constituents across Connecticut.

"I think all our towns agree that the remote option allowed more people to participate in town meetings and monitor other municipal board and commission meetings," said Elizabeth Gara, executive director of the Connecticut Council of Small Towns.

Gara said many towns noticed an uptick in attendance during the pandemic, which has since dropped off somewhat as the world opened up this summer.

But access does not always equate attendance.

In New Milford, Mike Sennello, who owns a media company that administered the Zoom side of Town Council meetings and currently oversees the meetings' broadcasting, said there was a "massive uptick" in subscribers to the town's YouTube channel during the pandemic, but only a "mild uptick" in actual meeting viewership on the streaming site since last summer.

That could be because more people subscribed and were notified when meetings streamed, he said.

For both virtual and in-person meetings, Sennello said attendance correlates with the level of outrage the topic generates.

In Brookfield, virtual meetings didn't have a significant impact on attendance, and volume continues to depend on the issue at hand, Dunn said.

"We'd like to see that number higher. We'd like more public participation," he said.

Providing virtual options allowed residents across the state more flexibility to attend meetings, noted John Filchak, executive director of the Northeastern Connecticut Council of Government.

"It really opened up things in terms of access and availability and participation, so I think that's been a huge positive," Filchak said.

While Filchak doesn't know if a virtual broadcast option is necessary for every small commission meeting -he used the example of a library meeting - it allows options for increased resident participation and can even make someone more willing to volunteer their time to sit on a board.

"It's just so convenient to tune in, and you can also go in and re-see it again," he said. "A lot of people [may be] saying, 'You know, I can't really come home from work, have dinner, and race up to the town hall and sit down for two hours, but I can open up my laptop on the kitchen counter, and I'll do it."

Still, Filchak said the interaction at in-person meetings can be hard to replicate.

Nyesha McCauley, senior director of communications for Everyday Democracy, a Hartford-based non-profit that promotes civic engagement, said the public has been interested in the group's webinars teaching people how to testify in front of governing bodies.

But McCauley hears anecdotally that virtual meetings can have drawbacks.

In some ways, virtual attendance options have made access better, but the lack of in-person contact can make people feel less connected to their elected officials, McCauley said.

"It's two sides of a coin and I don't know which one is weighing out in this time," she said.

Abiding by the rules and regulations

Providing a streaming or virtual option is not as simple as turning a camera on. With virtual meetings come further standards and access requirements for towns to meet.

Some of Connecticut's larger towns and cities already broadcast their meetings, but smaller towns had to start from scratch. Technological issues abounded at first.

"There are a lot of moving parts that towns need to comply with in order to supply remote access," Gara said. "There have also been meetings that have been forced to shut down because people participating remotely could not hear the board members' comments during the meeting, because the audio was not sufficient."

The meetings would have to be terminated and rescheduled.

Filchak said in some very small towns people used one laptop and twisted it around depending on who was speaking.

"Towns were a little nervous about whether they would inadvertently violate some of the laws," Gara explained.

With remote and hybrid meetings, towns run into accessibility and equity issues -those who didn't have broadband, the hard of hearing or hearing impaired, and language barriers. Town video streaming has to be compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"That's something that, unfortunately, this system is learn as you go to some degree," Filchak said.

In New Milford, a deaf resident requested closed captioning at town meetings. The woman, a mother to a 5-year-old girl in the local school district, struggled to understand decisions that were being made during Board of Education and Town Council meetings.

The schools and town moved quickly to make their meetings ADA compliant.

"Closed captioning should probably be a standard whether someone requests it or not," Filchak said.

Gara said there is value in efforts to continue providing remote options.

"We do want to make sure, however, that these issues are addressed so that it doesn't become a huge burden for our small towns going forward," she added.

The cost of going virtual

Setting up livestreams and broadcasts can be time-consuming and costly.

Sennello said in New Milford, his own equipment that he brings to Town Hall for livestreaming the meeting costs between US$15,000 and US$20,000 .

To have a full set-up with a control room and hardware would be a "colossal, colossal cost," he said.

It also can take many hours for Sennello to set up, oversee the meeting and then eventually pack up his equipment after the meeting ends.

For smaller towns where leadership positions are sometimes held by volunteers, Gara said it can be "burdensome" ensuring equipment is available to record or tape at each of the many municipal boards and meetings.

"The cost is no doubt an issue depending on how elaborate you want to go," Filchak said of remote or hybrid options. "And that's something I think we're going to have to look at as well."

However, Filchak noted there are more cost-effective gadgets and methods to livestream or record meetings, including the Meeting Owl Pro system, a 360° camera that was designed with hybrid meetings in mind.

The technology will continue to evolve, Filchak said, "but it may well be that we are going to have to ask for some grant funds for towns in the future if they want to really embrace this."

 - TNS