Martha’s Vineyard Commissioners were split Thursday evening on whether to return for in-person meetings, but ultimately approved a new, hybrid format.
Thursday’s vote follows a new state law extending the option for remote meetings until 2025.
The commission, along with other key boards on the Vineyard, has been meeting solely over Zoom since April 2020.
Commission chair Joan Malkin presented a newly crafted meeting policy on Thursday that would mandate in-person attendance for all 17 commissioners. Under the new guidelines, the meetings will be hybrid, but applicants with projects under DRI review, as well as commissioners, must be physically present. Other stakeholders or members of the public could attend in person or remotely.
“I wanted to make sure what we’re doing is safe,” Malkin said of the policy. “I want to make sure that we’re providing meaningful access to everyone who participates. I want to maximize participation, and continue with the kind of transparency that we’ve had.”
Last month, the commission tested the hybrid format while discussing the MVC’s newly adopted preservation policy. Commissioners were present at the MVC’s Stone Building’s conference room, while a handful of commissioners opted to participate via Zoom.
The meeting room had been adjusted to accommodate two microphones and three screens, in order to enhance audibility and accessibility.
Malkin said they’ve concluded that the hybrid format was successful, with only a few drawbacks.
“The sound was readily audible by everyone in the room, and by remote participants,” she said, adding that the screen-share option was also readily visible to all attendees. “Those two things are very important,” she said.
What remains a challenge, Malkin said, is visibility of all remote participants to in-person participants, and vice versa. If attending the meeting via Zoom, it’s difficult to visually note who’s speaking, she said; but continuing roll call voting “should take some of the sting out of that.”
Malkin’s proposal was met with some pushback, as a number of commissioners advocated for the option to attend meetings via Zoom.
“It feels to me like it’s a little retro to say every meeting has to be in-person,” Commissioner Kathy Newman said, stressing that many things changed over the yearslong pandemic, such as the growing number of people who successfully work remotely.
Commissioner Kate Putnman agreed. “The world has changed,” she said. “Going back just because we’ve got an elderly group of commissioners is not a good solution.”
Putnam said the MVC has felt more inclusive, with greater attendance from the public, since holding remote meetings. “If we’re going to say everyone has to show up in person, we’re going to be functioning as a diminished group,” she said, adding that the planning agency is already struggling to attract people to run for seats on the commission.
She emphasized that the in-person policy would hinder public participation.
Commissioner Jeff Agnoli echoed those sentiments. “Things have changed,” he said. “The MVC should be evolving with those changes.”
Before COVID-19, MVC meetings were “sparsely attended,” he said, often limited in that not everybody is heard and listened to equally.
Agnoli added that in his opinion, commissioners have gotten to know each other better during the Zoom meeting era than pre-pandemic.
For fuller participation, better communication, and even limiting carbon emissions, “Zoom is a perfect option,” he said.
Commissioner Peter Wharton highlighted that oftentimes there are dozens of remote participants at commission meetings held via Zoom, and it could be problematic when trying to accommodate those large groups in one meeting room.
Meanwhile, other commissioners voiced support for returning to in-person meetings. “This isn’t like people working from home because of COVID,” Commissioner Trip Barnes said. “This is very, very important stuff.”
He said it could be confusing if half the commission is participating via teleconference and half are physically present. “It’s a nice thing to have for emergencies or if somebody is ill,” he said. But for applicants with projects under review, “they’re not getting the Martha’s Vineyard Commission unless they’re getting the whole group right in front of them.”
Barnes stressed that applicants should also be present, in order for everyone to read body language and to get a “sixth sense of what’s going on.”
Commissioner Fred Hancock agreed, and recommended that at the very least, the commission meet a quorum in person. “I think it’s very important that we don’t have more commissioners remote than we have in the room,” he said, “I think that sends a terrible message.”
Commissioner Doug Sederholm seconded. “Democracy works better when people meet in person,” he said. “An awful lot of communication is nonverbal, and I’m not getting that same nonverbal information that you are when you’re in the same room as someone.”
Sederholm emphasized that since the creation of the Martha’s Vineyard Commission, they’ve met in person, up until the pandemic.
He acknowledged that some commissioners and participants would be subjected to long drives to and from the Stone Building, which can be a hassle. “It’s an awful lot easier to do Zoom, there’s no doubt about it,” he said. “But that doesn’t make it the right thing to do.”
Ultimately, the commission approved the policy, contingent upon a three-month trial period, in a 10-6 vote; Commissioners Joan Malkin, Doug Sederholm, Christina Brown, Jay Grossman, Brian Smith, Fred Hancock, Ben Robinson, Trip Barnes, Michael Kim, and Ernie Thomas were in support. Commissioners Jeff Agnoli, Kathy Newman, Kate Putnam, Greg Martino, Carole Vandal, and Peter Wharton were opposed.