City council approves controversial remote voting measure

ANTIGO — The Antigo City Council adopted a motion by a 6-3 vote Wednesday night that allows members to vote remotely.

The change, which is now in effect, permits council members appearing via video conferencing applications such as Zoom to vote at up to four meetings per year while not physically present at city hall, likely because of extended periods of travel.

Third Ward Alderman Tim Kassis, who for several of the previous winter months attended but could not vote at a number of meetings he attended via Zoom from Florida, called the change a “no brainer” because of improved technology.

“The problem I had with the whole thing was, I’m there, I’m participating, I’ve got all my notes. I’m sitting somewhere else, but I’m still there. But they’re saying ‘you can’t vote’? That’s an injustice to my constituents, because I’m there, I’m participating. I should be able to represent my constituents and vote,” Kassis said.

“That’s the whole question here. It wasn’t anything else but, ‘Can I vote?’ And now we authorized that yes, you can vote. And this thing about missing six months, I’m not going to do that…as far as the Zoom meetings go, I don’t want them to be abused. I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’ll probably use it a couple times a year maybe.”

Mayor Terry Brand, though — who indicated at a Finance, Personnel and Legislative meeting where the measure failed to gain majority support last month that he disapproved of the motion in its current form — said that theoretically with the amended rules, the prospect of having absentee council members is now possible.

“If you were to leave the night of a meeting, miss four meetings, and come back just before the next meeting, that’s just short of six months,” Brand said. “If you were to leave tonight after the meeting and attend four consecutive council meetings via zoom, you wouldn’t have to be back until the next meeting, which is just short of six months being absent from the community.”

A related but separate motion that stated all council members would be required to remain in their wards a minimum of 20 days per month was also voted down by a narrow 5-4 margin at the meeting.

Prior to the vote, Seventh Ward Councilman Glenn Bugni made note of the proposal’s wording and went on to suggest it was unenforceable.

“First of all, the “physical presence,” and then “for 20 days per month”? What does that do? Do you have to be here for 20 days per month? Does that mean you can’t take any vacations at all? You know, I can’t believe you’d even have people running for city council then,” Bugni said.

In the citizen comment portion of the meeting, several city residents shared their opinions about the measure, including Cindy Kuhls, one of Kassis’ constituents, who reiterated Kassis’ own point that not allowing aldermen to vote remotely represented a disenfranchisement of those who had elected them.

“I think [he] probably calls back sooner than some of you people that live in town,” Kuhls said of Kassis. “Because the people I’ve talked to, they always get a call back. I talk to other people and they say, ‘Oh, I called my alderman — I haven’t heard anything.’ So I have no problem with it being a Zoom meeting. I think it should be a Zoom meeting.

“It should be up to the voters of the third ward or wherever the person doing the Zoom meeting is instead of the committee here. So wait and take it to an election the next time they’re up for an election.”

Christine Breutzmann said she actually did not disagree with Zoom voting, but still disagreed with the change.

“My issue with the changes as they are now is the absence for up to four months for three members at a time,” Breutzmann said. “I understand that there are some members of the council that have great relationships with the members of their wards and a lot of those are longtime residents with longtime council members. That’s certainly to be expected and commended.

“But we are a growing community. Every day we are getting new faces and new businesses in our community, and those people need to be represented too. They’re not necessarily going to have the same connection as your long-term residents do with their elected alderpersons…absolutely, if the phone numbers are out there we can call you, we can email you — that’s not even a thing up for discussion…but how likely is that to happen unless somebody already has that connection with you? If I had not met you or did not know you, I would be very hesitant to pick up my phone or type on my keyboard to someone that I’ve never met, that I don’t know. That’s my concern.”

Fifth Ward Alderman Mark Edwards, who has stood against remote voting since it was first proposed several months ago, said that in his mind, the issue is not “truly resolved.”

“I know people said that it should be up to each ward, but you can’t make each ward pick. You can’t just referendum a ward obviously,” Edwards said. “I still think it should go to referendum. I don’t know if it could get that steam to do that or not — I don’t know.

“You saw in the audience it was probably half wanted it and half didn’t. But it wasn’t truly clear if the people really want this or not. I find from when I talk to people around the city that most of them don’t want it. I still think it should be up to the voters to decide. It’s not a council issue, it’s a citizens issue I feel. The people didn’t give them this privilege. They took it on their own, and I just hope they don’t abuse it.”