Both houses of the state legislature have approved a measure that would let city boards continue to hold either fully online or "hybrid" public meetings through 2027, state Sen. William Brownsberger (D-Suffolk and Middlesex) reports. The bill now goes to Gov. Healey.
Online meetings were originally approved in 2020 as a way to keep government from grinding to a halt at a time when large public gatherings were banned. Even after the pandemic eased, the state approved an extension, due to expire at the end of this month, to the exemption from the state Open Meeting Law.
Some city boards, such as the city council, have gone to hybrid meetings and hearings, in which officials meet in person - but stream their meetings live online and accept testimony via remote hookups. Other boards, however, including zoning and licensing, continue to hold their meetings and hearings only on Zoom.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Why would this not be permanent?
By BostonDog
Fri, 03/21/2025 - 10:35am
What's the point of putting an end date?
If there's a problem in the future it's just as much work to revise the law as it will be to renew it again. The only people who don't like online meetings are those who would rather the public not attend.
Hybrid meetings work! Remote? Not so much.
By DS
Fri, 03/21/2025 - 10:54am
Since I left the city in 2021 I have been a part of a few boards in a small MA town, and have found that Hybrid meetings are an effective way to ensure both public participation as well as meeting quorum requirements for meetings to begin. Fully remote/online-only meetings, however, have been poorly managed, often inaccessible, and have received a lot of feedback from less-technologically inclined folks (primarily but not exclusively elderly community members) that it is NOT an accessible form of meeting.
IMO Remote meetings should be ended completely at this point in the pandemic recovery process, but Hybrid options remain a positive takeaway of the Covid-pivots and should be extended indefinitely (if not codified formally).
In person option
By BostonDog
Fri, 03/21/2025 - 11:31am
It would be a helpful change to the law that any meeting which is entirely remote needs to have an option to attend via a computer set up for that purpose by the city in a public location such as a library or town hall.
In the flesh.
By Frelmont
Fri, 03/21/2025 - 12:18pm
In the flesh.
So ya thought ya might like to go to the…public meeting… [(adapted from Waters/PF)]
The default and the norm should be to show up in person if you’re physically able more often than not. We all deserve the opportunity to directly lay eyes on and lend ears to our community members and leaders. If you can smell the sweat, all the better. Not only is the effort to show up in and of itself an important action, but the maximum bandwidth is in person. Subtle information is filtered and lost being remote and filters apps/effects are lies. If someone is pale and haggard we should see it, rather than a false rosy, artificially taught visage.
It’s good and prudent that it expires in a reasonable timeframe. Who knows if the misleadingly named algorithm, “AI,” will in two years stand in for members of our meeting members./?
Hybrid YES, Remote only when necessary
By Robert Winters
Fri, 03/21/2025 - 11:57am
I have to agree with others that permitting hybrid meetings should be made permanent, but I also agree that all-remote meetings should not be the norm, and they should preferably only take place when a hybrid meeting or an in-person meeting simply isn't possible.
Hybrid is an accommodation.
By Anonymous
Fri, 03/21/2025 - 12:59pm
Remote only is a way to suppress public participation.
Add comment