ROYALSTON — Most municipal boards and committees throughout Massachusetts have decided to meet remotely — if they meet at all — as the battle against the COVID-19 virus continues. Royalston’s Selectboard is no exception, but its members did vote at their meeting last week to reconsider the policy in early May.
But, while the decision to do so may seem reasonable, not every member agreed remote meetings should continue that long before reconsideration.
At last Tuesday’s board meeting, which was carried out remotely, Chair Deb D’Amico said, “We need to discuss this tonight. Will we, as a board, require now and moving forward that all meetings must be virtual?”
“In effect,” said board member Chris Long, “we have done that. We have told committees we don’t want you meeting except — we don’t want you in the building — except essential people. Therefore, I think we should vote this.”
The third member of the board, Roland Hamel, felt differently.
“I think it should be monitored as we go.” he said. “Revisit it every two weeks. Things are changing constantly and I just don’t think we should put something out like this. We can revisit it every two weeks and, if we need to, extend it.”
Long countered that a vote to meet remotely until further notice could be rescinded at any time.
“I think we should at least go as far as the governor’s general warning, and that’s May 4,” she said; a point with which D’Amico agreed.
“I think since the governor has put such a wide band around the next four weeks,” said the Chair, “I think it would be wise for us follow suit.”
Long then made a motion to close all public buildings for everything but essential purposes until May 4, and that all board and committee meetings be virtual in nature until that time.
“Even the state,” said Hamel, “the heads of the state meet every day and they’re on television together, social distancing. But they’re meeting day after day. And here we are; we’re going to throw something out there like this. We’ve got a town to run. What’s wrong with just revisiting this every two weeks?”
“And what do we base changing our mind on, Roland?” queried D’Amico.
“It’s simple,” her replied. “We’ve got a town to run. We’re responsible, and I don’t think we should rush into something like we’re in a panic here. I agree with doing this for two weeks, then revisiting it. I know we could cancel it at any time, but why go through that; why not just set it for two weeks and look at it again in two weeks What’s wrong with that?”
The board had considered holding meetings in the dining room at Town Hall, which would provide more room for social distancing, but D’Amico said she felt it would be best to play it safe.
“This situation seems to have exponentially ratcheted up,” she said. “A week ago, we thought we could meet in person and invite the public in virtually, but the concern now seems to be higher about people being out and about, people being in each other’s spaces. I’m of the notion that we err on the side of caution; make it a broader amount of time.”
Ultimately, the board voted 2-1 to keep the policy of virtual meetings in place until May 4, Hamel casing the dissenting vote.
Greg Vine can be reached at gvineadn@gmail.com.