Much like most of the world, some Jefferson City Council members want to go back to the way things were before COVID-19 hit while others want to embrace some changes.
Ward 2 Councilman Mike Lester proposed standardizing two elements of City Council committee meetings: allow the public to take part virtually and include a public comment period on all agendas.
For instance, every Public Works and Planning Committee agenda includes an opportunity for residents to "address council/staff on stormwater and other public works issues."
But agendas for the Public Safety Committee don't include the same public comment option.
Both are committees made up of City Council members.
Lester said he brought up the ideas of standardizing the approach for public comment periods and whether those comments can be shared virtually after noticing committees are handling those two areas differently.
"I have also been to at least one meeting where there was an individual there interested in the business that was happening, and it seemed to me they wanted to have some input and felt because there wasn't anything on the agenda to allow that, it wasn't appropriate," he said.
The goal, Lester said, would be to increase transparency and trust in local government.
"I just believe we will have fewer problems in public trust if we open and do as much of our business as possible open to the public," he said.
All city meetings are open to the public under the Missouri Sunshine Law, and staff members post agendas to the city's website, but Missouri does not require a public comment period at all meetings.
Lester brought the issue up at a Committee on Administration meeting Thursday, where members asked city staff to put together a policy proposal requiring public comment periods and virtual participation - with some exceptions if technology isn't working - to discuss at the January meeting.
While all council members agree with encouraging public participation, some aren't sure Lester's proposal is necessary.
Most council members said they support the idea of a public comment period on all agendas since it would just put in writing how they feel they already handle meetings.
Ward 1 Councilman David Kemna said he wouldn't be against either measure, but pointed out there are places on agendas for members of the public to speak on topics.
"At every council meeting, there's always a time period slated for anyone that is wanting to talk on any bills that are upcoming, and there's also new business where people can bring up other stuff," he said. "So, I feel like it's there I don't know if people really take advantage of that or people are really aware of it. Maybe we can do a better job of making that known."
To Lester's concern some members of the public don't know they're allowed to provide input when it isn't explicitly said on the agenda, Kemna said that's an easy fix by changing agendas.
"I don't feel like it's discouraged by any means now with the way they have it set up," he said. "But, I don't have any issues with making sure that it's in black and white on an agenda."
Ward 3 Councilwoman Erin Wiseman said she could really go either way on standardizing public comment periods.
"I think we do a really great job of being transparent and available for the public," she said. "I didn't witness what he was particularly referencing with regard to public comment. Usually we try to address everything in admin, and nobody ever shows up to finance If there really is some sort of distrust in our process, then absolutely that should be available."
Ward 5 Councilman Jon Hensley said he hasn't really formed an opinion yet on either measure, because he wants to see the policy proposal from staff first.
"I'm just looking forward to the draft from staff, and I think it sounded generally like a good practice to look into in general," he said. "I think they're good things for us to look into and to think about how we might be able to implement them."
However, views differ more when it comes to virtual participation.
Ward 4 Councilman Ron Fitzwater is a member of the administration committee and the only one to vote against the measure Thursday.
His main concern, Fitzwater said, is people will say things electronically they wouldn't otherwise.
He's also worried virtual participation in meetings that include a lot of back and forth between people can get difficult to manage.
"I personally believe that if people have an issue with the city, they ought to come down here," he said. "I've invited a lot of people. We all get people in a coffee shop that want to tell us how to do things. That's fine, come on down and let's have a discussion, but people will do things when they have to look you eyeball to eyeball that they would not say if they had to come in and make the presentation."
Fitzwater said while he understands people may be hesitant about a confrontation, he feels the City Council is a group of reasonable people.
"I like people being able to participate and dial in and listen," he said. "Point back to public works, there are things we have talked about that ended up positive for the individuals by them being in the room and us having a good discussion."
Ward 3 Councilman Scott Spencer said he'd support virtual participation for members of the public, but would like to see some delay so people can't just "cuss up a storm. I think that'd be a rare case."
Ward 2 Councilwoman Laura Ward brought up wanting to be accessible to people who can't make it to City Hall for a meeting whether because of physical disabilities or time constraints.
"It would still allow them to hear an issue that's happening in their neighborhood so they can share it with the neighborhood," she said. "So if a neighborhood wants to come together to then attend a City Council meeting that a committee directs the issue to go to, they could come to the public hearing then. But I don't think there's ever a problem that would be caused by information getting out to the public."
The more accessible government is the better, Ward 1 Councilman Hank Vogt said.
"I think the people who run the meetings do a great job of making sure that ones who are supposed to be speaking are speaking, the ones who are not are not and keeping things orderly," he said. "I agree with Laura that we're a professional group able to maintain meeting telephonically or virtually and in person at the same time."
Ward 4 Councilman Derrick Spicer said he's against virtual participation except in specific situations, such as the pandemic or somebody who is homebound with mobility issues.
"If they can't make it in or if they have mobility or they can't drive, I can totally understand," he said. "Let's be realistic, the majority of people that have problems don't have a problem coming into the council If they're handicapped or whatever else, of course they would be able to do it virtual, but I don't think it should be open to everybody."
Ward 5 Councilman Mark Schreiber said it should be left up to the committee and the chair whether or not to allow virtual participation, but he'd rather see people meet in person.
"I think that you have more of an opportunity to visit with people, to answer their questions, to get them in contact with maybe somebody else present in the meeting that might be able to help them," he said. "I'm pretty much in favor of leaving things the way they are."