Stonington officials say no to streaming meetings
‘Let's get off our butts, out of our houses, and re-gather in the world,’ says official. Proponents say video creates more town awareness.
March 24, 2026
By Steele Hays
A local citizen’s request for the Stonington select board to begin live-streaming its meetings has generated significant controversy and strong feelings.
At its March 16th meeting–after sometimes contentious discussion–the select board voted 5-0 to delay any decision on the question in order to gather more information on the issue and consult with a lawyer.
Stonington resident and business owner Morgan Eaton originally brought the proposal to the select board in late 2024, but no action was taken. Eaton said in a March 23 interview with The Rising Tide that she wanted to continue to advocate for live-streaming the meetings so that more local residents could be involved in community affairs and “know what’s going on in the town.”
“Having informed citizens could not possibly be a bad thing,” she said. “For me, it’s been really helpful to learn more about things like our waste transfer station and other issues. Educating the public is hugely helpful. For example, we had a recent water rate increase and understanding the reasons for that is helpful. It demystifies things.”
At Stonington’s March 16 select board meeting, Eaton proposed two alternative ways to livestream the sessions:
Use a service from a Maine-based company called Town Hall Streams that would let residents view meetings live or on demand at any time. Online viewers would not be able to speak or participate remotely. The company’s service includes equipment and storage of the videos for up to five years.
Use the town’s existing Zoom account and equipment, which could allow remote attendees to comment and ask questions. The meeting videos could be posted to the town YouTube channel for later viewing.
The Town Hall Streams service carries a one-time set-up charge of $1,250 and a monthly subscription cost of $300. Eaton said she would pay for those costs for one year as an incentive for Stonington to move ahead with this idea.
In the aftermath of the March 16 select board meeting, Stonington economic development director Linda Louise Nelson wrote a lengthy post on social media opposing streaming, which, in turn, has generated dozens of replies with both opposing and supporting views.
“The pandemic introduced to us the concept that we can participate in everything, from business meetings to public meetings to cultural events, from the comfort and convenience of our private homes,” Nelson wrote. “Streaming is a bit like the snake in the garden of Eden: once you bite the apple...is it more convenient for you to never have to leave the unchallenging comforts of your own nest? Absolutely. Does it remove our understanding for the need to meet people different from us face to face and eye to eye to hash through our shared problems? Data shows it does.”
Nelson continued: “Streaming, similarly to the advent of television in the 1950s, does not build our engagement muscles: it creates passive viewers of events. Streaming of movies, other culture, and public meetings, however, has only increased the disengagement of the American public from the skills required to gather and work together in true democratic decision making. Let's get off our butts, out of our houses, and re-gather in the world with each other. Healthier for hearts, minds, AND communities!”
Select board chair Travis Fifield did not express a specific point of view at the March 16 meeting, but when contacted by The Rising Tide, Field replied via email, saying that he was opposed to streaming the meetings.
“My preference is to not stream and archive except in unusual or special circumstances since it would change the nature of how the select board currently operates,” Fifield wrote in his email. “The issue isn’t just the money for the streaming service and hardware though, right? It’s the long-term archiving that has to take place once those streams are recorded… Proponents are making this out to be as simple as sticking some cameras up in the meeting room at town hall but this is a complex, multi-faceted issue that affects many town processes. I appreciate the presenter’s want for a fast and furious implementation, but that isn’t a prudent approach to town policies.”
Fifield also wrote what he described as “an open letter” to town residents providing additional views on the issue. That letter is published in the Opinions section of this week’s The Rising Tide.
