SEA ISLE CITY – During his successful campaign for a seat on City Council, Ian Ciseck said that, if elected, he would push for remote access to council meetings. At the Sept. 9 meeting he tried to honor that pledge, and got nowhere.
Ciseck suggested to his four other colleagues on the council that the city establish a trial period for livestreaming council meetings, to allow residents a better opportunity to “engage with us.”
His arguments gained no traction with other members of the governing body and drew no comment at all from Mayor Leonard Desiderio, who also has shown no interest in remote access by residents to county Board of Commissioners meetings, where he serves as commission director.
Ciseck repeated several times, “Let’s give it a try.” He passed out a copy of the resolution that set up remote access and participation in Avalon Borough Council meetings. The reaction was total uninterest.
Sea Isle City holds its council meetings at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday morning. Residents who have a job would have to leave work if they wished to attend.
According to the census, 45% of the city’s permanent population is below retirement age and above school age. The census data also shows that 83% of the city’s homes are not owner-occupied, with the vast majority vacant much of the year. These are typical numbers for the county’s island communities, where second home owners have made significant investments in the city.
The county tax board’s data shows the aggregate value of property in the 2.2-square-mile municipality at more than $10 billion. Second home owners may not be voters in the city, but they are the largest taxpayers. Should they wish to engage with the council, to use Ciseck’s term, they can do so only when they are in residence or if they make a trip to Sea Isle from their permanent home elsewhere.
The issue of remote access to meetings was not an agenda item at the Sept. 9 council meeting, so only word of mouth would have let the public know it would be discussed.
There were a few residents there to support the idea. One second home owner used a controversial pumping station as an example of an issue he might like to be able to follow without being present in the city. Another resident specifically said that she had left work to be at the meeting, urging the council to have a trial period for remote access.
Council President Mary Tighe said livestreaming of the meeting was not necessary to provide access to council members. She said people could contact members of the governing body via phone or email at any time. Tighe added that in her experience, if residents have issues to raise “they show up.”
Council member Frank Edward was concerned that anyone, including nonresidents, could call into a meeting. In response, Ciseck said there could be a process to verify who the caller was. He made that concession even though municipal meetings are open to all members of the public and not only residents of the municipality.
As objections were voiced Ciseck tried to counter, offering the suggestion that those not present at the meeting could post questions ahead of time. That also is not normally a requirement for public participation at government meetings.
Council members knew the issue Ciseck was prepared to raise; it is not new in Sea Isle. No one on the council indicated that they had viewed any of the videos of meetings in towns that do livestream. These videos are all posted by the municipalities for asynchronous access by members of the public who may be working or otherwise unable to view the meeting live.
After the meeting Ciseck said he would continue to try. He said he feels it important to encourage and invite more public participation in local government.
Although there was no statement made at the Sept. 9 meeting that indicated a possible future for livestreaming governing body meetings, a council message dated Sept. 18 as part of the city’s e-newsletter suggests there may be such a future.
The message states: “Council is looking into this idea and will alert the public if any new communication system is put into place.” The message does not offer any details, but it does say the issue is still alive and under consideration.
The message goes on to say, “While the City Council discusses the concept of broadcasting meetings, the public is reminded that there is no need to wait for a City Council meeting to ask questions or express concerns. Comments in the form of emails and phone calls are always welcome.”
Contact the reporter, Vince Conti, at vconti@cmcherald.com.
