Letter: On The Right To Be Seen At A Public Hearing
Photo: Zoom
Editor’s note: The following letter was sent to Town Council President Lynn Griesemer in February. Griesemer’s response is included below with her permission.
My wife Susan and I are involved with the same zoning issue our neighbor Ray LaRaja wrote to you about on February 17th — a public hearing seeking a special permit for property at the corner of Strong Street and East Pleasant. In particular, the lack of visibility anyone other than the applicant (and, of course, the board) has during the Zoom hearing. We are parties in interest for this application; comments we have submitted are in the public record.
Your response, on February 18th, which Mr. LaRaja has shared with me, gave short shrift to our concerns:
From: Griesemer, Lynn <GriesemerL@amherstma.gov>
Date: Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 8:17 AM
Subject: RE: public hearings and ‘being seen’
Since the Town moved all its meetings to Zoom, this has been our practice. While other municipalities like Northampton have tried the “let everyone into the room” approach, it is my understanding that they moved back to the same approach we use. The issues include Zoom bombing, which has happened to at least 4 or 5 Town meetings including one with explicit racial slurs.
Upon checking this out we learned this, from the Northampton Planning Department:
[T]he Boards actually ask that the speakers be seen, to closely mimic real public hearings. I’ve never heard of the opposite for public hearings. The only time that any of our Boards/Bodies ask for people to turn off video is the City Council only AFTER public comment is over. That is only to make it easier for the Chair to see all the Council members who are speaking.
In addition, via telephone from the Select Board of the Town of Hadley, paraphrasing here: “Certainly those who are speaking at public hearings should be seen!” (Emphasis heard in the voice.)
Abutters are “parties in interest” at special permit public hearings. Mass General Law defines “parties in interest” as “the petitioner, abutters, owners of land directly opposite on any public or private street or way, and abutters to the abutters within three hundred feet of the property line.” MGL ch. 40A §11. Our property is one of those.
As parties in interest we deserve to get a seat at the table, visible to the board at least when we speak, if not at all times the applicant is speaking. To not allow our image to be fully communicated biases the hearing, depriving us of our due process rights. Having served on the Planning Board for nine years I know very well that our town takes great care to provide due process to all interested parties.
Clearly the hearing allows outsiders to be seen: the applicant’s engineer is seen; and the town attorney gets a continuous visual seat during the hearing. These are not board members. To allow visual access for the applicant but not others speaking during public hearing leaves those of us with a legal interest deprived of equal protection, a violation of due process, which discriminates against our interests. The applicant’s representative is allowed extensive time to address and be seen by the board, while those of us who also have an interest are allowed only four-minute audio time slots. How is this not discrimination?
If you are seriously concerned about Zoom bombings, there’s a simple Zoom command: “elevate to panelist,” which easily accomplishes this goal. Even my church provides visual access for about 90 people every Sunday, with our administrator toggling the controls to determine who speaks, who gets seen. And she’s a regular human being, not someone employed by a town to design I.T. controls.
It’s logical that the visual section of the public hearing be discontinued following comments and presentations by all interested parties — I’m sure we and our neighbors would understand this. But this should also apply to the applicant. In my nine years on the Planning Board, for example, we were careful to allow the comment portion of a public hearing to continue as necessary, but when we had heard enough we cut off comment from the public in order for the board to discuss the matter itself. This would be understandable. Here, however, this does not happen. Even when the board decides it’s time to discuss the matter internally, they continue to return to the applicant’s representative with questions, while others of us with an interest are blocked. How is this not discrimination?
I urge that you, President of Town Council, direct our Town Manager to instruct boards and commissions — especially this board, for this hearing — to fix this inequitable procedure and provide due process for parties in interest at town public hearings, so that we are heard and seen during the public hearing. Certainly these days of the virus have given us challenges for issues such as these, but this ain’t brain surgery — other cities and towns are doing it; we’re an educated town and should be able to do this, yes?
If you believe you cannot immediately and directly instruct the Town Manager to do so I urge you (and councilors receiving this via copy) to raise the matter in order for Town Council to create a town policy for this. We are surely hoping this can be done before our next Zoom session — continuation of this public hearing is set for March 25.
Hoping we get action from you at least by then, thanking you for your service and for considering this important concern, and wishing you and yours good health and tidings,
Richard Roznoy
Richard T. Roznoy is an attorney and resident of Amherst; he was a Planning Board member for nine years and a member of Town Meeting.
Lynn Griesemer’s Response
I have had an opportunity to discuss our present practice again with the Town Manager. While your email addresses various issues, I am responding to the issue of opening Zoom-supported meetings in a manner that allows all audience members to be panelists (Zoom specific terms).
There are various perspectives to bring to this discussion.
· During this period of virtual meetings, my observation is that more residents of a greater diversity have participated than if we, or any other council/board/committee/commission/working group were in the Town Room. In fact, one of the questions post-pandemic is how should what we learned during the pandemic regarding multiple ways to participate – virtual, email/letters, and in person – impact the present open meeting law. In fact, this is now a topic being introduced into the legislature.
· While some other municipalities have practices allowing all of the audience to be panelists, this in fact, is counter to what you see in in person meetings. During those times there is clearly a council/board/committee/commission/working group, usually some staff sitting to the side or in the audience, and depending on the issue, a large or small number of people in the audience. Once called upon they come forward to the mike. And this is done only during public comment. And if you are watching from home you rarely, if ever, see the audience.
· AND, while some municipalities have followed the above practice, in Amherst, even with all of the cautions, we have had numerous Zoom-bombings, at least one leading to significant trauma for participants. You only need to go on YouTube to find numerous examples of Zoom-bombing.
The bottom line for now is we will be continuing our present practice and given the apparent but cautious progress we have been making with regard to outbreaks and vaccinations, perhaps we will resume in-person meetings in the near future.
I urge you to be in contact with the planning board, other appropriate boards, and staff regarding your position with regard to the property in question.
Lynn Griesemer