Recently, the Illinois Appellate Court in Freedom Oil Company v. The Illinois Pollution Control Board, 211 Ill.Dec. 801, 655 N.E.2d 1184 (Ill.App. 4 Dist. 1995), held that participation via teleconferencing in an open meeting by members of a public body does not violate the Open Meetings Act. Following this decision, the Village of Lake in the Hills had an opportunity to conduct a number of meetings, where one member participated via teleconferencing.

In June, Trustee Thomas Swan underwent major surgery which required an extended convalescence, but nonetheless did not prohibit him from participating in meetings via teleconferencing. The Village obtained a Polycom Sound Station allowing Swan to participate in Board meetings by teleconference. Subsequently, he participated in six meetings via teleconferencing. The meetings went surprisingly well. However, the experience affords us the perspective to make the following observations, which may be helpful to future public bodies considering the use of teleconferencing for meetings.

1. While Trustee Swan's medical condition prohibited him from participating except via teleconferencing, it seems appropriate that each public body, considering teleconferencing, adopt rules governing the scope of its use. We recommend consideration of the following issues in establishing such rules:
a. Should a quorum be physically present for each meeting or may all members participate via teleconferencing;

b. Should voice votes be allowed or must all votes be taken on the roll call if members participate via teleconferencing;

c. Under what circumstances may members participate via teleconferencing:

i. medical reasons only and if so, who makes this determination, the member or a physician?
ii. unavailability due to business?
iii. unavailability because of inconvenience?
iv. unavailability due to vacation? and
v. no reason necessary.

d. May more than one member be in the same remote location and participate via teleconferencing raising the prospect of consultation by the two absent members out of public view;

e. Should a member's participation by teleconferencing be part of the public notice; and

f. Should the public be allowed to participate via teleconference?

We also make the following observations:
a. State of the art equipment is essential. Speakerphones have physical limitations. The audio is voice activated and depending upon the noise on either end of the teleconference and, when the audio cuts in and out, portions of comments can be missed. Also, the absent member does not know when he/she may appropriately speak without causing interruption of others, thus creating a possible reluctance to speak depending upon the individual absent member.

b. Participation by teleconferencing inherendy carries with it various other problems. For example:

i. There is no face-to-face contact with the public.
ii. There is no personal interaction between
the absent and present members of the local governmental body.

Page 32 I Illinois Municipal Review / October 1996

iii.The absent member cannot view overheads, videos, handouts or exhibits presented at the meeting.

Despite all of the above, the Lake in the Hills experience was a positive one. The public in attendance seemed to accept as quite natural participation by telephone. Because of busy schedules and limited time, it seems likely that more and more future public meetings will be conducted with one or more members participating via teleconferencing. Problems with teleconferencing exist as discussed above. However, overcoming these problems or, at the very least, living with them seems preferable to having members absent. •

October 1996 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 33