Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLarry MorinMay 2 IN PERSON arguments LarryREASONS WHY THERE SHOULD BE NO MORE REMOTE HEARINGS AND WHY THE “EXTENSION” SHOULD NOT BECOME EFFECTIVE to be presented by Larry Morin, Member of Conservation Commission, on 5/2/23 1. There is NO “emergency”, “crisis” or danger – those “reasons” used in 2020 and 2021 from the governor’s edict did NOT apply in July 2022. They were optional as written in July 2022, but are no longer applicable. Are any of you/us “afraid” or “scared”? 2. The TOB Town Council has returned to In Person hearings and the technology for “hybrid” access has been in effect long enough for those persons who, for whatever reasons, are not able to attend in person, can still participate remotely, though not as effectively as “IN Person”. 3. This most recent (2023) “extension” as well as the 2022 Extension Order from the governor no longer has any relevancy to a medical or environmental crisis or emergency. Further, on Friday, April 28, I requested that a copy of whatever “order” or basis was issued by or from the Governor’s office, be provided not only to every commissioner, but also to every other person, especially consultants, who took the time and energy to submit their own comments, whether in favor of or opposed to In Person hearings, or indifferent. Further, to the extent that the 7/6/2021 Executive Order did, or may have been based upon or included “suspending” or “eliminating” certain provisions or requirements under the Open Meeting Law, those “reasons” no longer exist or apply and as discussed below, impose or creates obstacles to the fair and significant reasons for invoking and upholding the OML. And by perpetuating or extending the Zoom method as the ONLY means by which present or future hearings could be held, just causes further deterioration of fair and open hearings, discussions and decisions, thereby turning the “reduced OPEN MEETING Law” into a “weapon of suppression”. Almost every other Conservation Commission here on the Cape has returned to IN PERSON hearings. 4. This is NOT a decision to be made ONLY by the Commission and certainly not exclusively by the chair. Input from those who appear before us, whether frequently or for only one time, are entitled to be able hear, observe and participate in the entire meeting session just as they have been able to experience when meetings are held at 367 Main Street, Hyannis. 5. There are far more valid reasons that support hearings be held IN FAVOR of In Person that also should REQUIRE that they be resumed and held permanently. There should be no justification to continue Zoom hearings based on the personal reasons, preferences, conveniences or comforts of anyone, especially the Members of the Commission, those from other Town departments who appear as “witnesses”, those who are the applicants, abutters and neighbors and citizens in general. 6. One of the obvious and overriding flaws and impediments we have, or at least should have experienced, for more than almost three years deals with COMMUNICATIONS . There are many varied means by which Remote Communications have proven to be detrimental to the entire process of this Commission, and most significantly, notably when hearings were held IN PERSON on April 4 and 11, how much better those IN PERSON hearings generated face-to-face, interactive exchanges and awareness. During Zoom hearings, the universal impact that affects the applicants and abutters has been the “clutter”, “confusion”, interruption and delay caused by the --- waiting room restrictions, the “Mute” and “Unmute” obstacles, and the inability for all parties involved to communicate clearly --- it is beyond obvious how often we have had to ask “someone”……from commission members to the public, to “UNMUTE” yourself. That’s ridiculous!! --- for most of us, we recognize that some if not many participants cannot, for whatever reasons, leave their homes and attend, in most instances over the pre-pandemic years those persons either found a way to attend or to ensure that their representatives were prepared to state their positions. --- there is nothing that is “natural or normal” about communicating via computers or phones. While over time, many of us have “learned” how to operate Zoom and the various types and qualities of equipment at our disposals -- BUT having to “raise our hands” either to be recognized or to speak, and then “allowed” to talk after our hands have been raised does NOT constitute “normal discourse”, especially when there are differences as to factual evidence, procedures, what the Code and regs either “allow”, “permit”, require or prohibit, and the various interpretations and opinions -- observing “body language” as well as “facial expressions” is almost impossible unless we’re in the open and face-to-face 7. TECHNOLOGY might have been an issue or uncertainty back in 2020 and 2021, but those limitations have not only changed and been resolved but also are no longer valid or credible. --- it is well recognized that entities and/businesses, such as Local Government, law firms, consultants, and other financially capable of and possess attuned sources, have, out of necessity, “adapted” and grown along with these changes, --- but it is, or should be, well recognized that many citizens, whether based on age, health, confidence or even interest and desire, may have limited computer equipment or skills, and in too many of the evening hearings, the prospect of having to stay up late ---- whether In Person at the Town Hall, or in their own homes ----- creates burdens and imposition on those people. --- the levels of self-confidence vary significantly in a closed settings and while those strengths or limitations cannot just be “corrected” easily, in an open setting there can be much more consideration and respect shown and given to those who may need some help and patience to pose their questions and/or to express their views much more easily. -- those reasons more than justify that the Town provides what is referred to as “Hybrid” or “Individual Remote Access” (IRA) to those who, for whatever reasons, are not able or willing to attend in person. 8. Further, during these almost three years of “readjusting”, we have had to deal with and learn about several different “effects” that have been imposed upon all of us: (a) there is also what is referred to as “the VIDEO EFFECT”, meaning how well or clearly may information be presented, shared, understood and resolved; (b) there is also what is referred to as “the EQUITY EFFECT”, meaning dealing with those differences based on experience, education, culture, financial status, health, or other “status” or “function” issues. (c) as noted previously, in the Zoom Culture or Environment, we have had to deal with the “waiting room”, “holding room” or some other fictituous location which has never existed in the IN PERSON environment, and never should have to be a very annoying and disrespectful imposition or “isolation” that stifles and suppresses communications without any justification. Every person who takes the time to attend should be able to listen and hear not only all of the issues associated with the application for which they want to ask questions but also to all other matters on the Agenda to enable them to become more familiar and comfortable with the issues and procedures as well as the demeanor of the commissioners. While the “IN PERSON” settings may not resolve any or all of these differences, there certainly is a higher likelihood that being in person will alleviate if not reduce the degree of differences and be more likely to create better better mutual decisions making the process much better than the Zoom environment can ever accomplish. And while most of the hearings involve a straight forward presentation with just a few people, most of whom live nearby or who have computer access, that still does not enable the applicants or their consultants to interact with each other or with other parties (such as abutters) to see, hear and sense their positions, BUT it is much more likely that during an IN PERSON hearing, those differences will be expressed and will be much more clearly communicated and resolved. HOWEVER, for those instances where an application involves either an entire neighborhood or in some instances even the entire Town or Village, the Zoom environment and experience has proven almost every time to cause an ineffective means of convening or conducting a fair, open hearing. And that also includes the imposition of “three minute time limits”, notwithstanding that the proponent of the project has been given carte blanche unlimited time to present their proposal. 9. Another frequently raised issue deals with the JURISDICTIONAL limits and parameters of Conservation Commission regulatory authority, deliberation and decisions At almost every hearing, especially those when the project being considered is or becomes controversial, many people, most notably the applicants, abutters, citizens and others less familiar with conservation issues and criteria, there has been an alarming lack of understanding as to how the concerns and uncertainties can, or cannot, be addressed. 10. And FINALLY, regarding the current as well as pending scheduled SHELLFISH RATING hearings, it is essential and critical that ALL of those hearings must be held IN PERSON and as public hearings, to ensure and recognize that: -- there must be face-to-face communications with Commissioners, consultants, various town staff members/employees, those who as commercial and/or recreational shellfishers, and the general public -- our prior experiences with applications which have drawn the attention and objections from MANY abutters or citizens have not been handled effectively via Zoom -- it is much too cumbersome to engage or communicate via “hands up”, “mute or unmute”, time limitations, and the delays associated with just not eing able to hear from the speaker or to otherwise engage them in sensible conversation. As noted previously, the first two open and public hearings that were held on April 4 and 11, 2023, proved that by having face-to-face conversations by and between the Staff members (who appeared) from Natural Resources and all of the Conservation Commission members at the same time made it obvious that for all of the remaining and future hearings dealing with the Shellfish Ratings and the Consequences necessitated In Person, not Remote, hearings.