LETTER: Trust the people to decide if streaming is good for government
March 30, 2026
To the Editor:
Select board chair Travis Fifield’s recent letter against streaming select board meetings names something real: the risk that recorded meetings could make board members more guarded. I take that seriously. But his letter asks us to weigh a speculative harm against a concrete one—that many people who care about this town simply cannot be in the room.
I’m thinking about the parent putting their children to bed. The older resident who no longer drives at night. The homeowner who works on the mainland. The lobsterman who was up at three in the morning and is in bed by the time the gavel falls. For these people—business owners, working parents, anyone with a full schedule—the current system effectively shuts them out. We are not asking for a convenience. We are asking not to be shut out of our own town’s governance.
Mr. Fifield argues that streaming would make meetings performative—that board members would stop saying “I don’t know” and start scripting their remarks. Consider what this actually claims: that our select board can deliberate honestly only if most of its constituents can’t watch. I don’t believe that about Stonington’s leaders. In reality, being able to say “I didn’t understand that before, but I do now” is a sign of credibility, not weakness. Most people respect that. And a little more thoughtfulness before speaking isn’t a bad outcome—it’s part of the responsibility of the role. Plenty of towns across Maine stream their meetings. Their boards still disagree, still change their minds, and still do the real work of governance.
Mr. Fifield also worries that townspeople might avoid speaking about sensitive matters if meetings are recorded. Executive sessions already exist for personnel, legal, and property matters requiring confidentiality. Many municipalities handle this well with clear guidelines and appropriate discretion. But the general business of the select board—how our tax dollars are spent, what ordinances are adopted, how our waterfront is managed—is precisely the business that should be accessible to every resident, not only those who can be physically present.
Mr. Fifield suggests that if meetings are streamed, the real conversation will simply move somewhere else. That risk is worth taking seriously—but it exists regardless of whether meetings are streamed. Good governance depends on board members keeping deliberation where it belongs: in public. Avoiding transparency because it might change behavior is backwards. Transparency is supposed to shape behavior.
At its core, this comes down to what we think public meetings are for. If they’re only for the people who can show up in person, then the current system works fine. But if they’re meant to inform and involve the broader community, then access matters. Working families, people with disabilities, older residents, seasonal taxpayers—if the only meaningful participation is in-person participation, all are told their engagement is less valid. That is not the Stonington I believe in.
Mr. Fifield writes that remote viewers “have convinced themselves that they’re getting more access” when really they’re getting less. With respect, that is a choice the viewer should get to make—not one the board makes for them. A Zoom link is simple and low-cost. Yes, meetings might become a little more measured, a little more deliberate. That’s not necessarily a loss. It might just be what accountability looks like. Trust the people of this town to decide for themselves how they want to engage with their own government.
—Richard Russell, Stonington
The Rising Tide welcomes letters and opinion pieces from a wide variety of viewpoints. Published pieces do not reflect the editorial stance of The Rising Tide or its board, and are not endorsements. To submit a piece to us, email info@risingtide.media. We ask that all submissions be original and exclusive to The Rising Tide.
