It’s more complicated, said Councilman John Procter: “One thing that is interesting is if a council member is out of town, like in a motel, what would be the posting requirements [noting that a council meeting is taking place] for that? Just so this doesn’t blindside us, I’d like more of a summary on how the law works.”Another issue is instances where teleconferencing would be accommodated at the initiation of a council member, said Espinosa. Would all such requests be honored or could teleconferencing be limited to illnesses.“If we delve into the law we’ll probably that most,” circumstances are covered, said Councilman Don Johnson. “I have no problem with reviewing it, but be real careful that we don’t go beyond what state law requires.”City Attorney Phil Romney said limits would have to be researched, including on whether or not a quorum has to meet within city boundaries. “My interpretation of this is because of the unusual nature of teleconferencing the council can set some boundaries for it.”Teleconferencing does not allow seeing “faces or expressions or reading body language. The only way around that is allowing video conferencing. . .I think there is a legitimate distinction,” Romney added.First Amendment issues must also be explored, noted Procter. Although the council can approve teleconferencing “but the flip side,” should be examined. “I would just like to have it evenly applied.”The issue is of an unusual nature, said Romney, and although having all council members present is the original intent, “we have to have reasonable criteria.”