Lincoln County Weighs Safety, Transparency as It Plans Return to In-Person Meetings

The Lincoln County Board of Commissioners are preparing to resume in-person public meetings after several months of holding sessions virtually after county officials said employees raised safety concerns.

.

During the Sept. 2 Board of Commissioners meeting, Chair Walter Chuck said county staff and the county’s insurer had previously recommended moving to online-only meetings after multiple complaints from employees who reported feeling unsafe during contentious public comment periods.

“In-person meetings were discontinued due to safety concerns,” Chuck said, noting that Human Resources and the county’s insurance carrier, CIS, had advised the change.

Chuck told Commissioner Casey Miller that he had checked back with HR Director David Collier, who indicated he was “comfortable with meeting again,” with some conditions.

The Board has operated without an in-person meeting option since March 18, when Human Resources Director David Collier directed county business meetings to be held virtually, citing employee and public safety concerns. The change followed a contentious March 4 Board meeting, when a citizen approached the dais, and was made without a formal vote of the Board.

“He did have some concern about safety. We’ll be working with those, and then put those in place for the next meeting,” Chuck said. Chuck added that he expects to be out of state for the Sept. 23 meeting and suggested keeping that session virtual, then resuming in-person meetings in October.

Miller Seeks Clearer Rules and Public Explanation

Miller asked for more details about the circumstances that led to the move to virtual meetings and how the county plans to address potential problems when the public returns to the boardroom.

“It would be helpful to have: what can you tell us what the safety concerns were?” Miller asked. “If we are to moderate our meetings carefully, so whatever happened doesn’t happen again, what were the concerns, and what do you see as making sure that we provide some more rules and guidelines for the community when they’re in chamber?”

Miller said that because the decision to move to virtual meetings was made through county administration and Human Resources rather than through a formal Board vote, he believes the public should receive a clearer explanation and updated rules before meetings resume in person.

“I just want people to understand the decision to make these meetings virtual was not a Board or motion decision,” Miller said. “We’re not vetting this in a way that’s transparent, that is helpful, that helps us avoid this in the future.”

County Counsel: Staff Safety Complaints Led to Virtual Meetings

County Counsel Kristin Yuille said the shift to virtual meetings followed complaints from staff to Human Resources regarding physical safety and emotional well-being. “Staff made complaints to Human Resources for physical safety concerns,” Yuille said. “HR recommended that we go to virtual meetings, and it was because of a claim for our insurance company and for Human Resources for multiple complaints about staff members and their physical safety.”

Yuille said staff members who feel threatened should be able to leave the room and that Human Resources has authority to respond if similar concerns arise again. “If there is a safety concern during that’s physical threats, then my recommendation is for staff to remove themselves from that threat,” she said. “If staff feel they will not be able to participate in the meetings, then that’s something that Human Resources has indicated that they will move forward with.”

Miller asked for more specific guidance about what conduct could be considered threatening, including whether approaching the dais, shouting or entering certain areas of the room could trigger a response. “What will constitute the threshold of threat?”

Miller asked. “Is it getting within five feet of the dais? Is it raising voices? I mean, I need something tangible when I’m chairing.” Yuille said the county would not attempt to incorporate the criminal code into its public comment policy but would instead rely on existing laws and internal protocols.

Chuck Favors Existing Rules; Miller Seeks an Update

Chuck said he believes the Board already has adequate rules addressing order and civility that were adopted under a previous commission. He said the responsibility falls to the chair to enforce those rules.

“I think you and I just need to be sure that we conduct the meetings in an orderly manner and make sure the audience does the same,” Chuck told Miller. “I intend to follow the rules that were agreed upon by yourself, Commissioner Jacobson and Commissioner Hall.”

Miller said the existing rules do not directly address the safety complaints that led to the move to virtual meetings. Miller proposed discussing public comment and safety criteria at the next virtual meeting before returning to in-person sessions at the following meeting. Chuck did not second the motion.

Safety Protocols Expected Before Return to In Person Meetings

Yuille said she would coordinate with Human Resources and county administration on safeguards before the public returns to the boardroom. “Of course we’ll set up protocols to ensure that we have those measures in place, including so people can’t approach staff when they’re trying to work,” she said. “All those details, of course, will be there.”

No specific date for the return to in-person meetings was set during the Sept. 2 discussion. Chuck indicated that he expects the Sept. 23 meeting to remain virtual because of his travel plans and said in-person meetings could resume in October after safety protocols are established.

Miller also questioned whether Chuck’s planned travel required the Sept. 23 meeting to remain entirely virtual. Miller suggested that he and members of the public could attend the meeting at the courthouse while Chuck participated remotely. This has been done in the past and was used frequently before the passing of Commissioner Hall, while she was ill. Yuille said an in-person meeting should wait.

The discussion highlighted differing approaches from Chuck and Miller over both how the Board should prepare for that return and how decisions affecting public access to Board meetings should be made.

Chuck said existing rules can be used to maintain order, while Miller sought more specific standards outlining what conduct would be considered a safety concern and how the chair should respond and what role the elected Board should have in decisions affecting the format of its meetings.