Since the COVID state of emergency expired, local governments have consistently wondered about remote meetings. The Court of Appeals evaluated an aspect of remote meetings in State of North Carolina ex rel. Cannon v. Anson County. Then, in March of 2025, the Supreme Court deemed the Anson County case to be without precedential value. Where does that leave local governments? This post will focus on locally adopted remote meeting rules and is the third of a multi-part series. Part 1 focused on the broad legal landscape surrounding remote meetings after COVID, and Part 2 centered on local governing boards’ authority to conduct remote meetings.

Possible Approaches

Given the ongoing ambiguity around holding meetings remotely, local governing boards should rely on their attorneys to make judgment calls in this area. A menu of possible approaches to remote meetings follows:

1. In person only. The most cautious, and arguably most straightforward, option is to conduct governing board meetings entirely in person and prohibit any remote participation, outside of qualifying states of emergency as described in G.S. 166A-19.24.
2. In-person quorum and in-person voting required. A lower-risk compromise option is to adopt rules of procedure that allow for remote attendance but do not allow remote participants to count toward quorum or to vote. In other words, only physically present board members would count toward quorum—the minimum numbers of members needed to conduct business. Under this approach, remote members can participate in discussion but cannot make motions, seconds, or vote.
3. In-person quorum required with restricted remote voting. Under this approach, a local governing board would still require an in-person quorum to conduct business, but it would allow remote participants to count toward quorum as well.  Rules following this method would permit remote participation in discussion, deliberation, motions, seconds, and votes. However, remote votes would only count if they were not outcome determinative. If a remote vote was a tiebreaker or outcome-determinative vote, the rules would require a repeat in-person vote to finalize the matter.  Repeating the vote in person is a cautionary measure in case of challenges to remote voting.
4. Allow remote quorum, participation, and voting. The opposite of approach No. 1, approach No. 4 allows for remote quorum, remote participation, and remote voting.  These local rules would count remote participants toward quorum and would not require an in-person quorum. Remote voting would be permitted in all circumstances, including in ties, without the need for a repeat in-person vote. As Part 2 of this series discussed, it is not clear that local governing boards have the authority to count remote participants toward quorum or to count remote votes. Therefore, this approach is probably the most “high-risk.”

Neither statute nor case law provide which of these approaches is permissible. Ultimately, local governing boards should rely on advice from counsel  when navigating these uncertainties.

Local Rules of Procedure

If local governing boards wish to continue allowing remote participation under these or any other approaches, they should adopt specific rules authorizing such participation. Having remote meeting rules will help boards define their authority to conduct remote meetings and assist them in consistent application. Boards may adopt such rules in a variety of ways including as part of their local rules of procedure or as local policies. Regardless of the form the rules take, boards should approve the rules by majority vote in an open meeting. There are at least four main areas local rules should address.

• The definition of “remote” or “electronic” meeting

Because there is no broadly applicable definition of “remote” or “electronic” meeting in law, it would be wise for boards to establish their own definition in their locally adopted rules. Boards that follow Robert’s Rules may wish to incorporate Robert’s definition of remote meetings (discussed in this post). Other boards may want to mimic the remote meeting definition in G.S. 166A-19.24(i)(3). Whatever the definition, boards need to understand when and how the remote meeting rules apply, and clearly defining these terms can help.

• Quorum

Remote meeting rules should establish whether remote participants count toward quorum. If they do not, boards may want to address whether remote participants can still contribute to discussion. If the rules do count remote participants toward quorum, they should also define when a remote participant is considered “present” for quorum purposes. Is it when the participant is connected to the meeting remotely? Only when the participant is visible and/or audible? Rules should make these determinations to avoid unnecessary ambiguity.

• Voting

Remote meeting rules should also explicitly state whether remote participants can vote and how and when these votes do or do not count. They should additionally explain whether remote participants can make and second motions and whether they can participate in discussion and deliberation. For those using approach No. 3 above, the rules should define when a remote vote is considered an outcome-determinative vote.

Moreover, recall that city governing boards are subject to the “default yes” rule in G.S. 160A-75(c), whereby a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the council chamber (or who has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members present) must be recorded as an affirmative vote. (Though not subject to this statute, many county governing boards have adopted this rule in their local procedures). Consequently, city governing boards and relevant counties should address how this rule applies in the remote context. They should answer questions such as: i) what constitutes an unexcused withdrawal that triggers a “default yes” in the remote context? and ii) what constitutes a failure to vote in the remote context?

• Cross-references

Finally, it may be prudent for rules to state explicitly that G.S. 166A-19.24 controls during applicable states of emergency. To be clear, G.S. 166A-19.24 controls during qualifying states of emergency whether boards include this language or not, so including this cross-reference does not have legal significance. Instead, incorporating this citation is a practical tool to remind boards of the emergency statute and to help them understand how it interacts with their local remote meetings rules. Similarly, boards may consider including language about notice under G.S. 143-318.13(a), addressing requirements for electronic meetings. As Part 1 of this series explained, it is not clear that G.S. 143-318.13(a) applies to all types of remote meetings. However, the cautious approach is to assume that G.S. 143-318.13(a) applies to all remote meetings—however defined on the local level. Boards should then ensure they are complying with these notice and procedural requirements any time they conduct a remote meeting under their rules.

What about appointed boards, committees, subcommittees, and commissions?

The Supreme Court’s treatment of the Anson County case did not impact the analysis for appointed boards, committees, subcommittees, and commissions since it dealt specifically with a county governing board. As I explain in more detail in this blog post, some of these bodies likely have significantly more freedom to conduct remote meetings, provided that there are no specific statutes regarding physical presence for voting or quorum. Still, many of the considerations outlined above apply to appointed boards, and it is likely good practice for these boards to adopt specific remote meeting rules as well for the sake of transparency, clarity, and consistency.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s treatment of Anson County muddies the already murky waters of remote meetings. Without more statutory or judicial guidance, local governing boards should be cautious when conducting remote meetings, particularly when significant votes are involved. In consultation with counsel, they should adopt specific remote meeting rules, follow them consistently, and comply with the notice requirements in G.S. 143-318.13(a).