The reasons I don’t like this are many. Eye contact, body language, engagement in the conversation at hand, can all play a role in interactions during a physical coming together of individuals, but of greater concern, in my opinion, is what may be going on in the remote room where the physically absent member is calling from. Are they alone? Are they being fed information from a third party after the public hearing is closed? Are they paying attention to the proceedings? Are they in a room that is accessible to the public in case someone would like to observe their participation? Is the person on the phone even the actual elected or appointed member of the body in question?

Perhaps these concerns would not be as much of an issue if the remote members were using 2-way video technology where their activities during the meeting could be monitored, they’re body language observed (and vice-versa), and the presence of others in the room could be seen. The dynamics of debate and decision-making would certainly change, regardless, just as email, texting and instant messaging has changed inter-personal communication on a global scale.

When it comes to simple speakerphones, however, I think it is clear that there are big problems with doing the public’s business in phantom voice from God-knows-where.