Chicopee City Council votes down mandatory in-person meetings

City Councilors discussed at its June 2 meeting a proposed rule change to make in-person participation at meetings required.
Photo credit: ChicopeeTV

CHICOPEE — A proposed order that Zoom participation would be only allowed for illness and emergencies at City Council meetings was voted down after a lengthy discussion during the June 2 meeting.

City Councilor Mary Beth Pniak-Costello proposed the order after hearing from certain curious residents about the status of Zoom meetings. She also acknowledged that other communities are discussing whether to mandate in-person meetings and wanted to present the question to the Chicopee City Council.

For example, the Springfield City Council recently had a heated debate about a resolution proposed by Ward 7 City Councilor Gerry Martin requiring councilors to attend meetings in person.

Many Chicopee city councilors spoke against the proposed rule change. City Councilor At Large Joel McAulife stated that he thought the order was bad policy, procedurally flawed and “attempts to solve a problem that does not exist here in Chicopee.”

“Remote access has improved transparency, expanded public access and helped ensure that the public’s business can continue without unnecessary distribution,” McAulife stated. “A vague order limiting Zoom participation to folks who have illnesses or emergencies is not workable or reasonable. Who is the one that gets to decide what a reasonable illness or emergency is?”

Related: Springfield City Councilors debate whether to mandate in-person meetings

City Councilor Abigail Arriaga said that she, like many other councilors, has a busy schedule that limits her ability to join the meeting in-person.

“I work a full-time job, I’m a full-time mom, I sit on many boards, I volunteer, work; I do about 1,000 things a day. Does that mean that I’m not allowed to participate if I do need to participate on Zoom because I’m driving from one thing to another. I represent the people because I am the people; because I am the person that is doing all of it on a day-to-day; that’s why it is so easy for me to represent my ward, because I’m doing it all just like they’re doing it all,” she stated.

City Councilor Shane Brooks said the most important thing about remote meetings to him is that the council is able to reach a quorum so certain items can be addressed.

“We get the business of the city completed because if it takes somebody Zooming in to ensure we have a quorum so we’re not tabling an issue that could be vital to a taxpayer or resident, because we don’t have enough folks able to show up in person, because they’ve somehow been forbidden from showing up via Zoom,” Brooks said. “The quorum issue to me is the most important thing. If we can maintain a quorum to do the work of the city and the benefit of the residents.”

City Council President Frank Laflamme agreed with Brooks and highlighted past situations where the council almost didn’t have a quorum unless he called a councilor to join remotely.

City Councilor Bill Courchesne noted that City Council meetings are not how councilors represent their constituents.

“We don’t show up to council meetings in person to represent our constituents. We show up, whether it’s on Zoom or it’s here,” Courchesne said. “This really isn’t the business of our constituents. This is the business of the city. We take care of our constituents by going to their homes, answering their emails, or texts or messages. That’s how we take care of our constituents. The thought that we have to show here in person to take care of our constituents is crazy.”

An executive order was first established by the state in March 2020, and later continued through several actions of the General Court to authorize hosting fully remote and hybrid meetings under the Open Meeting Law.

On March 28, 2025, Gov. Maura Healey signed into law a bill that extends the temporary provisions pertaining to Open Meeting Law to June 30, 2027.

City Councilor Sam Shumsky questioned if the council even has the authority to set specific rules for the city that counteract the Open Meeting Law.

Pniak-Costello said she just posed the question to hear a discussion and was happy to hear the feedback.

McAulife made a motion to defeat the rule change. That motion passed unanimously.