Sound quality at town meetings is a frequent issue

Anyone who regularly attends or watches Wayland public meetings has likely heard some version of the same exchange.

“Can you hear me?”
“You’re muted.”
“Try moving closer to the microphone.”
“Can the room hear the remote speaker?”

These moments are so common that they often pass without comment. But a year-long review of meeting transcripts from 2025 shows they are not isolated interruptions. They are recurring symptoms of broader structural problems with how Wayland’s public meetings are set up, particularly as the town continues to rely on hybrid formats that combine in-person and remote participation.
The review identified audio-related disruptions in approximately 138 meetings across more than a dozen boards and committees. Conservative estimates indicate that between 20 and 31 hours of meeting time were affected by sound problems in 2025 alone.
For residents watching from home, problems with audio (sounds fading in and our, or dropped completely) often mean missing key sentences or entire exchanges. In some cases, viewers hear a speaker clearly on the broadcast, only to watch board members in the room struggle to hear the same person.
For people attending in person, the experience can be just as frustrating. Transcripts frequently note comments such as “we can’t hear you in the room,” “it’s very hard to hear from this seat,” or “the fan is making it difficult to hear anything.” Meetings pause while participants move chairs, switch microphones, or repeat statements.
Public comment is often the most affected. Residents addressing boards are asked to repeat themselves, speak louder, or change position. In several meetings, commenters explicitly stated that they were unsure whether they were being heard at all.

“This is it. This is as good as it gets. We have tried and tried and tried,”

Planning Board Chair Annette Lewis said at a Dec. 17 meeting when a resident asked her to use her microphone.
While the specific circumstances vary from meeting to meeting, the transcript record shows a small number of issues appearing again and again.
Muffled or low-volume speech was the most frequently reported problem, even when microphones were in use. This occurred across multiple rooms and boards, suggesting limitations in microphone coverage and room acoustics rather than individual speaking habits.
Audio routing failures in hybrid meetings were another recurring issue. In several meetings, remote viewers could hear a speaker clearly when board members physically present in the room could not. This points to problems in how audio is fed back into meeting rooms, not just how it is captured.
Echo and feedback appeared periodically, particularly when participants joined meetings from more than one device or when room microphones picked up amplified sound from speakers. These episodes often required muting and unmuting multiple participants before discussion could resume.
Connectivity and audio distortion, including garbled sound, freezing, or delayed audio, were also common. In some meetings, participants noted that turning off video improved sound quality, a sign that bandwidth and audio processing limits were being reached.
Ambient room noise increasingly appeared as a factor later in the year. Heating systems, fans, and general room noise were cited as making it “really difficult to hear,” especially in the Town Building’s primary meeting rooms.
Select Board member Bill Whitney raised an issue during the board’s Jan. 5 meeting. “The noise of the air conditioning or the mechanical system here has prevented me from hearing you, Madam Chair… and I would suggest we either find a way to address that [by seeking] ways to amplify our own voices [or] consider moving back to the former COA space, because we can’t hear one another, and how can members of the public?” he said.
One of the clearest findings from the 2025 record is that audio problems tend to cluster by location rather than by board.
The Town Building’s Select Board room and Planning Board room were repeatedly associated with audibility complaints. Transcripts from those rooms reference inconsistent microphone availability, uneven sound coverage, and difficulty hearing speakers unless they were seated or standing in specific locations.
In some Planning Board meetings, participants said there were no compatible microphones available for the room, forcing speakers to raise their voices or move seats mid-meeting. In Select Board meetings, ambient noise and unclear return audio for remote speakers were common themes.
By contrast, fully remote meetings showed fewer room-related issues, though they were not immune to platform-related glitches. This contrast suggests that the most persistent problems arise where physical room acoustics and digital systems intersect.
The transcript record does not suggest that these issues stem from lack of effort by staff or volunteers. Instead, it points to structural challenges. Hybrid meetings require audio to travel through multiple paths: microphones, mixers, speakers, conferencing software, and broadcast systems. If any part of that chain is misconfigured or overwhelmed, the result is lost or distorted sound. Small changes, such as turning on a fan or adding an extra remote participant, can push a fragile system past its limits.
The record also shows that meeting setups vary from room to room, with no consistent standard for microphone placement, speaker coverage, or audio routing. Troubleshooting often happens live, during meetings, rather than being resolved in advance. Over time, these conditions normalize workarounds. Participants repeat themselves. Chairs ask people to speak louder. Meetings continue despite reduced clarity.
Why it matters
Audio quality is not just a technical concern. It directly affects who can participate and how effectively they can do so. Residents who cannot clearly hear discussion may miss context for decisions. People providing public comment may feel discouraged if they are repeatedly asked to repeat themselves or are unsure whether they are being heard. For viewers relying on recordings, audio gaps can make meeting records incomplete.
Public meetings are required to be accessible, and sound quality is a fundamental part of that access. What distinguishes the 2025 review is that it moves the discussion beyond individual complaints. The numbers show that audio disruptions are frequent, widespread, and persistent across boards and months.
Between 20 and 31 hours of meeting time affected in a single year is not incidental. It is a measurable operational issue. As Wayland continues to rely on hybrid meetings to expand public access, the transcript record provides a clear baseline.