NATCHEZ — For members of the Adams County Board of Supervisors, a vote could only be a phone call away.

The board this month gave the public notice that in some meetings some of the supervisors may attend by phone.

It’s a practice the board has used on several occasions, and board attorney Scott Slover said the notice was a better-safe-than-sorry housekeeping measure.

State law dictates that boards give five-day notice if a quorum of a board will be meeting by telephone.

“The law is written in a way to make sure boards don’t have a surprise telephone meeting,” Slover said.

“This is in case we call a regular meeting and one of the supervisors may need to be available by phone. We’ve put in the minutes that you are now on public notice that if we call a regular meeting, one of the supervisors may need to be available by phone.”

Supervisor Angela Hutchins said the provision allows members to participate in important county business even if they are not able to attend because of short notice.

Hutchins said she’s attended meetings by phone before to address issues related to the sale of Natchez Regional Medical Center and economic development.

In one instance, she was in Houston to attend her daughter’s graduation from college when a need arose for the board to meet, Hutchins said.

“We should be able to attend a meeting by the phone,” she said.

“If I am out of town and I could be a part of a vote on an important issue, I think it should be there.”

Supervisor David Carter is another of the members of the board who has in the past attended a meeting by phone.

“Most of us have other jobs and occasionally have obligations to be gone for a trip two to three days at a time, and during that time might be an ad hoc meeting, and (phone attendance) might be beneficial,” he said.

Carter said the arrangement should not be used for the board’s regularly scheduled meetings and that face-to-face arrangements are always preferable.

“A lot of times, if we get one-hour notice, we can’t be there,” he said.

“But I have never not attended a meeting when I could have attended one, and I don’t think any member of the board has used (phone attendance) when they could be there in person.”

Slover said he could not foresee a scenario in which a majority of the board would not be physically present at the meeting.

“I don’t see how it is possible to run a meeting by phone,” he said. “When I have been in phone conferences with other attorneys, they are not very efficient and we do not like them.”