Cape May County officials often tout the fact that over 50% of New Jersey second homes are in the county. Each year, municipal governing bodies boast about the growth in ratables that accompanies the hot real estate market in vacation homes. In some communities like Avalon and Stone Harbor, statistics suggest that 85% of the homes are owned by individuals whose primary residence is elsewhere.
Why then do we continue to see resistance to making use of available technology for remote access and interactive participation in government meetings?
Such access certainly happened when the state mandated it during the surges in Covid cases in 2020. The pandemic forced municipalities to allow remote access for all meetings that were covered by the Open Public Meetings Act. It did so in a rushed and unplanned way, often resulting in less–than–ideal implementations. The challenge is to bolster the public’s access via available technology, not to suspend their use as soon as the mandate is lifted.
There are good reasons why county municipalities should be embracing remote access technology. Wider access to government meetings promotes transparency in government actions. It builds a stronger sense of civic engagement. It also accommodates the unique situation in this county where so many of the taxpayers live elsewhere for large parts of the year. Finally, it permits citizens to view meetings flexibly, on a schedule that fits their daily lives.
Yet a recent discussion at an Avalon Council meeting shows how far we still must go towards changing the mindsets of many municipal council members.
In that meeting, Councilman John McCorristin argued for allowing taxpayers to not only view Avalon governing body meetings, but also participate through a telephone link for public comment. McCorristin asked for a technology solution that would permit the public “to talk to us,” as he phrased it. Yet, his call for permanently adding a telephone link or some other method to allow remote participation ran into opposition.
Avalon Council President Barbara Juzaitis said, “the only reason we did any of this,” meaning remote access, “was because of Covid and the building had to close.” Now, according to Juzaitis, “the public can come to our meetings and at any point in time speak to us.”
In reality, Juzaitis was arguing that any property owner who might live hours away by car and would like to comment on business before the council in a February meeting was free to drive to Avalon and attend the meeting in person. She saw nothing wrong with that arrangement.
Cape May City was a pioneer in providing livestream access to meetings. It has extended that access to numerous boards and advisory committees. However, the city also has resisted remote participation, the ability of the public to offer comment at a distance. Once the state–imposed Covid requirements were lifted, the city returned to video access only, with no opportunity for public comment and participation unless the member of the public was physically present at the meeting.
Other municipalities like Middle Township left behind virtual meetings with remote public access as soon as the epidemic eased. Earlier talk about in committee meetings about possible video access to governing body meetings never turned into action. To see the township committee or share opinions with township officials, one must be in physical attendance at the meetings.
Currently seven of the 16 county municipalities provide video access to meetings with the videos posted following the meeting for future asynchronous access. One town provides an audio recording of the meeting on its website. For the eight other municipalities, in-person attendance is the only way to see or participate in meetings.
The county sets no example here. Citizens have no remote access to County Commission meetings, to meetings of the Open Space Review Board, or to any other standing committee or commission.
This is wrong.
In a democracy, everyone should have an opportunity to have their voice heard. To deny ready access via now–available technologies is a form of authoritarianism and has no place in our governance.
The public is entitled to broad access to government bodies that act in its name and under its authority. The access should be comprehensive involving most of the standing bodies whose decisions so importantly impact the lives of citizens and property owners.
It should include full and easy access online to documents and presentations.
Most importantly, the technology should be in place to allow public participation in meetings during public comment periods or public hearings on ordinances.
The county and its municipalities should not only provide such access but should actively encourage its use by the public.
It is time to abandon antiquated methods for providing public access and involvement in the activities of government. Some municipalities – Stone Harbor and Ocean City most notably – have integrated remote access and citizen participation using technology. That experience needs to be the norm, not the exception.
———
From the Bible – Give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” Luke 6:38
