MAC

In the not-so-distant past, the answer to this question would have been an unequivocal “no.” Now, it’s “maybe.” 

Eligibility to serve in a locally elected office is ordinarily dependent upon being a legally qualified voter of the town. “At the annual meeting, a town shall choose from among its registered voters the following town officers, who shall serve until the next annual meeting and until successors are chosen, unless otherwise provided by law.” 17 V.S.A. § 2646. Being a registered voter of a town, in turn, is dependent upon being a resident of that town. “Any person may register to vote in the town of their residence in any election held in a political subdivision of this state in which he or she resides who, on election day: (1) is a citizen of the United States; (2) is a resident of the State of Vermont; (3) has taken the voter's oath; and (4) is 18 years of age or more.” 17 V.S.A. § 2121. Since only registered voters can hold locally elected office, only residents of the town in which the vacancies exist can ordinarily be eligible to be appointed to serve those offices. 

The law, however, was recently amended with the passage of Act 157 in 2021 to permit voters to allow non-residents (though they must still be residents of the state) to be elected or appointed to all local offices, except those of selectboard and justice of the peace. This proposal may be made either by a town’s selectboard or by petition of five percent of the voters of the town and must be voted upon at either a duly warned special or an annual town meeting. The article to be voted upon must identify the town office(s) to be filled by nonresident(s). 17 V.S.A. § 2646a. 

Towns that have voted to allow this may also appoint non-residents to fill vacancies.

In March 2024, VLCT surveyed members to measure and understand what would be the potential effects on municipal entities if S.55 were enacted in its then-current form. On April 5, Ted Brady presented some of the results in testimony, indicating that the proposed requirements, if enacted, would create significant burdensome logistical and financial consequences for many Vermont local governments. This article notes additional results from the same survey, which was answered by 267 people representing 173 different municipal entities including not only cities, towns, and villages, but also libraries, water districts, and fire districts.  
 

Municipal Use of and Capacity for Hybrid and/or Remote Meetings

We posed the question “How does your legislative body hold its regular meetings?”. Of the 172 municipal entities that answered, 56% reported hybrid, 40% reported in-person only, and 4%  reported remote only.   

We went on to ask whether any of the municipality’s other boards or committees hold hybrid meetings. These “select all that apply” answers came from 97 municipalities: 70% planning commission, 43% development review board or zoning board of adjustment, 28% board of civil authority, 19% board of abatement, 5% listers, 3% auditors, and 33% “Other”. All are depicted in the graph below. 

Two Yes/No questions focused on the ability of municipal entities to hold more than one hybrid meeting at a time. Both received 169 responses. To “Do you have multiple meeting rooms where hybrid or remote meetings can be held?”, 83% said No. To “Do you have the equipment and software capability to hold multiple remote meetings simultaneously?”,  86% said No.  
 

Municipal Barriers to Hosting Hybrid and Remote Meetings 

Many municipalities adopted limited hybrid capabilities while the pandemic state of emergency was in effect, but they currently lack the financial or staff resources to hold all public body meetings remotely while also administering them properly and effectively.  

To the question "If you don't currently hold remote only or hybrid meetings, or have limited capabilities, what are the barriers for your organization? Select all that apply”, the responses from 130 municipal entities were: 

• Limited staff technical knowledge: 85%
• Limited staff capacity: 84%
• Equipment costs: 81%
• Software costs: 65%
• Security risks: 48%
• Telecom costs: 45%
• Other (write in): 31%;

Within the Other category, the top response came from ten respondents: the municipal facility doesn’t have reliable or fast enough internet service to ensure seamless public participation in hybrid meetings. This comes as no surprise: statistical data from the Vermont Department of Public Service indicates that eighteen percent of Vermont is still without reliable and fast broadband because their download/upload speed is 25/3 Megabytes per second or less. 

Additional written-in answers expressed concerns about residents not being able to access meetings remotely due to limited technical knowledge, lack of affordable internet, or lack of reliable internet access. The remaining written-in barriers included limited space (7%); limited available equipment (6%); and low participation, ensuring legal requirements are met for hearings, attendee training needs, reduced meeting effectiveness, and in-person preference (0.3% each).
 

Equipment, Software, and Services Being Used 

The survey asked what equipment (owned or borrowed) municipalities are currently using to conduct hybrid meetings. The "select all that apply” answers given by the 108 respondents were: 

• Microphones: 52%
• Staff-loaned computer: 50%
• Video camera: 44%
• Dedicated computer: 33%
• Projector: 19%
• Smart room: 12%
• Other: 53%

Of the 121 responses to “Do you pay for software services to host hybrid or remote meetings?”, 74% were Yes and 26% were No. 

What meeting software do municipalities use? Of the 109 responses to this “select all” question, Zoom got 97%, Microsoft Teams got 13%, teleconference got 3%, and GoToMeeting and Google Webinar each got 1%. 

Finally, to the question “Do you pay extra for streaming services to publish your recorded meetings?”, 87% of the 113 respondents answered No and 13% answered Yes. 

The data collected from this survey has been added to the growing body of data in our Municipal Data Project.  
 

Resources and Reference Materials  

• Ted Brady’s April 5 testimony to the House Committee on Government Operations  
• VLCT Hybrid Public Meeting Toolkit 
• VLCT Remote-Only Public Meetings Toolkit 
• Vermont Municipal Data Project 
• What It Takes to Run a Great Hybrid Meeting (hbr.org)  
• Hybrid meetings guide - Microsoft Research