Meeting restrictions split board

The board has been meeting in person with the option for members of the public to attend through Zoom. But Mayor Brian Johnson said Monday night the village will no longer provide online access.

After trustees Jason Detzel and Debra Gitterman spoke against the decision, the board took a vote, requested by Gitterman. Detzel and Gitterman voted against the measure, which they said needlessly restricted public access to village government and led to health concerns, but Johnson’s view won the vote, with trustees Douglas Cropper and Larry Ostrander supporting his decision.

Johnson’s reasoning behind ending online access was that he likes business to be done in person and that recording meetings is not required. “It’s not needed,” Johnson said. “It’s not required. It’s not needed.”

But when board members floated a compromise that would allow people to listen but not speak through Zoom, Johnson was not interested. Ostrander, Detzel and Gitterman all supported the compromise, but it was not brought to a vote.

The discussion of Johnson’s initial unilateral decision came when Detzel questioned Johnson’s reasoning, saying it made the meetings less accessible. “We don’t need it,” Johnson responded. “I like to do business in person.”

Detzel questioned the merit of Johnson’s decision.

“That seems like the opposite of community,” Detzel said. “We’re taking something away from folks. We’re making it less accessible overall. And what was the reason? I’m sorry, what was the reason again? We don’t need it?”

Johnson said if people want to speak to the board they should do it in person.

“If it’s that important to bring it up, I think you should stand in front of us in person,” Johnson said.

Detzel said it sounded like Johnson was thinking about himself, not the village.

“So you’re dictating what other people should do,” Detzel said. “OK, I mean that sounds like it serves you, not Philmont, to me personally, but, hey, if we’re serving you, then we’ll serve you, I suppose.”

Gitterman jumped in, saying there is no reason to end the Zoom access.

“I personally think there is no reason to end Zoom meetings,” she said. “Just keep them going, it allows more people to participate and witness, experience, these meetings and it encourages participation, cohesiveness in our community, I believe.”

Gitterman’s biggest concern is people not being able to access the meetings anymore because of health concerns, she said.

“In Philmont in particular we can’t assume that everyone who wants to participate in meetings can attend in person, and the reason is because Philmont has a unique demographic, across the political spectrum including the Hawthorne Valley community on the left and the more conservative community on the right, a large percentage of our residents are not vaccinated and are likely not going to get vaccinated,” she said. “And when a lot of people aren’t vaccinated against COVID, then for a large number of our residents, whether they’re vaccinated or not themselves, it will be too risky to attend the meetings. And if it’s estimated that 30% of the country will not get vaccinated, then in Philmont that number is likely to be closer to 40 or 50 percent. Additionally, we have elderly, immunocompromised and parents of young children who are only able to attend board meetings because of Zoom.”

Philmont Library Director Tobi Farley, who reports to the board, has attended the meetings because they are on Zoom, Gitterman said. “For me personally, just to have Tobi Farley along at these meetings, it’s worth it to keep these Zoom meetings going,” she said. “But on top of that, to my mind, for ethical and public safety reasons, we need to continue to allow Zoom participation.”

Gitterman asked the board to take a vote on the decision.

Farley said Tuesday the meetings being available online has made it more feasible to attend.

“It’s made my life a lot easier because I generally have programs right before that time so it’s a lot easier for me to make the meeting online because I can just flip from one Zoom meeting to another,” she said.

Farley has appreciated being able to give her library report herself instead of having someone else give it for her so she can immediately answer questions.

She knows of residents who listen to the meetings online without speaking and residents who watch the Zoom recordings after the meetings, which have been posted on the village website, because they can not make the meeting time. Without recording the meeting on Zoom, this won’t be available for residents.

Ostrander said his main problem with Zoom is when participants speak with the board and asked if the board could make it so people can listen to the meeting audio but submit questions through e-mail.

“The thing that I find difficult is the banter back and forth with the questions, and we get the same question month after month after month, and it becomes confrontational sometimes when we provide our answer, and so I don’t know, maybe a compromise would be, the audio would be on, questions should be submitted when they sign up, and we can answer their questions through an email or address it at the meeting,” he said.

At the present time, meeting attendees are allowed to speak or ask questions at board meetings by prior request. Workshop meetings do not have time for public comment.

Cropper said he knows other municipalities that have in-person meetings only, and Gitterman reiterated that more people in Philmont are not vaccinated than elsewhere.

Johnson reiterated his view: “I think it’s important to do business face to face myself. If you’re going to bring something up, you ought to at least make an effort to do it.” Gitterman referenced Ostrander’s suggestion, asking if the board can have Zoom for people listening and public comment in person. Detzel supported the compromise.

But Johnson said he assumed there would be nothing broadcast.

Detzel questioned the mayor about the point of taking access away.

“To see people,” Johnson answered.

Detzel responded, “But they’re just listening.”

Detzel and Gitterman brought up Farley again and were met with silence from the other board members. Johnson said the board will vote on whether to keep Zoom or get rid of it. The compromise for members of the public to be able to listen, but not speak, online that Ostrander, Gitterman and Detzel supported was not considered.

“Strong objection. Serious strong objection,” Gitterman said after the 3-2 vote.

“That’s fine,” Johnson responded. “It’s 3-2. It’s over.”

Gitterman requested everyone wear masks if the meetings are in person. Detzel agreed.

“I’m really disappointed in our village and I think we’re restricting transparency,” she said. “We’re restricting participation and I think it’s a big disappointment.”

Gitterman has advocated for better communication from the board this year by creating an email newsletter for board announcements and completely redoing the village website, which she said she has spent over 90 hours building. The website is expected to go live Monday.

The board workshop meeting May 26 will be streamed online because it was already advertised as such.