The McDonough City Council will not be joining the other local boards and municipalities which have been conducting virtual meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Two separate motions to initiate that process were defeated by a 4-3 council vote at its July 20 regular meeting. They came as a result of discussions begun by council member Sandra Vincent, who expressed several concerns about how city business is being conducted during this time.

Vincent said the city needs to provide the public with regular updates on the city’s COVID-19 response. While she agrees with most of the measures the city has taken, she cited some recent actions by Mayor Billy Copeland and city administrator Preston Dorsey that she feels should have been brought to the council according to the city’s charter.

Copeland said that while the executive order is self-explanatory, the issue can be added to a meeting agenda in the future for a full discussion if necessary. Council member Kamali Varner also mentioned her concerns about being included in decision making, and Vincent challenged Copeland’s decision to utilize executive powers in these circumstances. Vincent added that she was concerned about actions such as meetings being cancelled, City Hall being closed, determining hero pay for essential personnel and ensuring that employees are treated fairly.

Mayor Pro Tem Craig Elrod confirmed with city attorney Jim Elliott that the council authorized the mayor to have the power to make these emergency decisions back in March although the ordinance provides that the council can override the mayor’s decisions with a majority vote.

On a related topic, Vincent brought up what she feels is a continuing need to live stream meetings during the current pandemic. She said that virtual meetings, which other local municipalities are conducting, would allow for citizen involvement without the potential for exposure to COVID-19.

Varner asked the city attorney to explain the legal provisions for holding virtual meetings and was told that there is no provision in the law for virtual millage rate public hearings, since a bill introduced earlier this year to provide for that did not pass. Elliott noted that the city has held previous meetings where council members were able to call in.

When Varner asked Dorsey for his recommendations in this regard, Dorsey said that the city’s technology services director was reaching out to other entities who have successfully held virtual meetings, and he will be bringing that information back to the council.

Benjamin Pruett shared his concerns about relying solely on email for communication, and he asked about how to ensure that the public has a way to communicate their concerns and provide feedback with virtual meetings. Vincent discussed methods of technology being utilized by other municipalities, and questioned why the city does not use its social media platforms to allow citizens to provide feedback.

Mayor Pro Tem Elrod stated that all meetings that require public hearings need to be considered when making these types of decisions, specifically the consideration regarding zonings to ensure that development continues within the city. He also stressed the importance of ensuring that citizens can provide feedback and be involved with technology, while also ensuring that citizens have the ability to attend the meetings in person if they so desire.

Varner suggested that all city departments should be trained and implementing virtual meetings as a daily practice as well.

Vincent motioned to approve the implementation of virtual meetings within the city to include the City Council; and all auxiliary organizations, with staff reporting back on their recommendations. Varner seconded.

Elrod said he would need more information before voting to move forward with virtual meetings without first having an understanding or agreement as to how that would happen. Copeland expressed his opposition to holding virtual meetings, in that it they lack professionalism and would take away all the public interest in these matters.

Vincent offered an amended motion to move forward with virtual meetings after the July 27 meeting, and to have staff return with methodology. Varner seconded, and Stewart joined in voting in favor. But the other four voted in opposition and the motion failed.

Vincent asked if one of her colleagues would offer an amended motion regarding moving forward with virtual meetings, and Varner did so. That motion also failed along the same voting lines.