[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6252968,"mediaKeyId","3184297-ed28118fc92ccbee22fe643689f0b63e","parentId",3184297,"title","Committee questions provision letting public bodies discuss interest rates behind closed doors","audioSeconds",581,"startMs",1905000,"endMs",2486000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3184297-ed28118fc92ccbee22fe643689f0b63e&start=1905&end=2486","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3184297-ed28118fc92ccbee22fe643689f0b63e/thumbnail_1905000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6252968/Vermont/Committee-questions-provision-letting-public-bodies-discuss-interest-rates-behind-closed-doors","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6252968-c88e0edfd5bb6a990fc5191ca1bd7fd8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770936436&Signature=K6oY69r~h~X89iBnopSX4vKgl2sDWRfcjSejumDoZ0sJodg9hC7TGJNkC3w3q~6byFW2MQFcYS9R1ZZxuzcPKDXEiH5bZepvZCAzJ~b930LGk9Mp1jemaucgqweFK1Ar1Rmm4FSkFf~iEa0Bqh45ek2h2GjyUgb3yKGs1bVW2b9JooCVdVf~uFhFH6zVJ7GjLUXgj1INDQ~DHiJtyg9DtHzq0g3eXcSpGaxyJLagDRKx1ZRwBVi3RxA35gK6nt954urDrBU3xRjC-88I~GnKhohYd65Ee4y-UJP8FKJXwuNLhEUJX9twaiivfmnE9qX17Wz-anKjrmyEBH~kurYpmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-03T03:27:57.917Z","article","On May 2 the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee revisited a provision in S.59 that would allow public bodies to enter executive session to discuss information \"related to interest rates\" when a governmental entity is acting as creditor.

Lisa Loomis, a witness at the committee meeting, told lawmakers: \"All interest paid on any public loans is my money, or your money, or our money. So we have a right to know interest rates.\" She and executive director Mike Donahue asked why deliberations about interest rates might be confidential and urged the committee to understand the provision’s origin.

Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, said the subdivision at issue applies to publicly financed loans where the government acts like a creditor, not to ordinary public borrowing or indebtedness. \"This is not applicable to public borrowing or public indebtedness. This is where the governmental corporation is the creditor acting like the bank,\" Anderson said. He explained that in many contexts agencies that offer loans as part of their statutory duties may handle rate-setting and related deliberations that are treated as confidential until a final decision is public.

Anderson added that most financial information of this type becomes public once the public body adopts the interest rate as an action; executive session would cover the deliberation leading up to that decision. He also said that the current Public Records Act includes an exemption for confidential business information (trade secrets, proprietary financial data) and that existing law already allows public bodies to enter executive session to consider records protected by that exemption.

Committee members pressed whether the provision was necessary: if the financial information is already protected under the Public Records Act, does this language add anything. Some lawmakers suggested narrowing the text to apply only to specific state agencies or to the narrow set of circumstances that prompted the Senate insertion. Members said they would try to trace the provision’s origin in the Senate and consider striking or narrowing it if that better reflected legislative intent.

Committee members gave no final vote; they said staff would research the provision’s source and return with clarified language or options.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Government Operations-2025-05-02-10:35AM","oneSentenceSummary","The House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee questioned a provision in S.59 that would allow public bodies to meet in executive session to discuss interest rates when the governmental entity acts as creditor.","taxTitle","Government Operations & Military Affairs, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30955,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6252973,"Vermont lawmaker urges adding disorderly-conduct language to protect public meetings",939,38000,977000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3184297-ed28118fc92ccbee22fe643689f0b63e&start=38&end=977","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3184297-ed28118fc92ccbee22fe643689f0b63e/thumbnail_38000.jpg","/articles/6252973/Vermont/Vermont-lawmaker-urges-adding-disorderly-conduct-language-to-protect-public-meetings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6252973-04ab2ca5aff98d463ffc4b07b4a94e23/orig.mp4?Expires=1770936436&Signature=V99AUwR51ODARriFCKejxXHefviwIjvN0cc11LdO~vwp45z2AoENcxJTI9tiL4CYW9Fp-bX1VjcyVkMCxeoIRF7lLGxAhUUOkpHWhI1loWCj4X6GCYsiIUt-4g2pch8uR6UasPvyI~-7jaHarxCG8WaPySjvl5FxAP1wuqXbL7vfbjPIzmEtL7SJtFk4BAX4wA5z-GlA8DHB~YBzzUavVNtfRKAZezirT-hVqRG258VKRBzO6pMhXRHMwdgidKIizLQ9hnoTr8D28zWN0uRXPY7-U2IOpoN4LW6hU1-S4aMlD~0GRLOlWleXXD2Ecy6sg0fuwc~2PfV8XBqPFLgzFw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Jim Harrison, R-Chittenden, asked the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on May 2 to add a single sentence to the disorderly-conduct statute that would make it a crime when a person’s intentional or reckless behavior “substantially impairs the effective conduct of a meeting of a public body.”

Harrison told the committee he had raised similar language earlier in the session in H.145 and said the added sentence would give municipal volunteers clearer authority to remove disruptive attendees. “Substantially impairs the effective conduct of a meeting public body,” Harrison read from the proposed text.

Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, told the committee the proposed sentence tracks language from the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Colby and would clarify the threshold for charging someone under 13 V.S.A. §1026. Anderson said the court had required that conduct must “substantially impair the effective conduct of the meeting or cause the meeting to stop for a significant duration.” He added the provision is drafted specifically for meetings of public bodies because courts expect government bodies to tolerate a higher level of heckling or shouting than private assemblies.

Committee members described recurring problems in small towns where select board and school board volunteers face sustained harassment and, in some places, resignations. One member said citizens who “get sworn at and threatened” can be deterred from serving; another said chairs need clearer tools to maintain order.

Anderson outlined the bill’s three-part approach in the draft H.145 language: (1) legislative intent describing how courts should balance First Amendment rights and the public’s right to assemble; (2) an explicit open-meeting-law clarification allowing public bodies (not only chairs) to adopt rules on removal of individuals; and (3) the disorderly-conduct sentence that would apply the State v. Colby standard to public-body meetings. He warned that because the amendment affects criminal penalties, judicial committees could seek to review the change as it moves through the Legislature.

Committee members and counsel agreed to seek more practical perspective from law enforcement and to continue refining the language. The committee did not vote on the amendment; members said they would follow up with counsel and invited testimony from sheriff’s offices or deputies to understand enforcement concerns.

The discussion remained framed as policy development rather than a final decision; the committee plans additional work and outreach before deciding whether to adopt or modify the proposed sentence.

","Representative Jim Harrison, R-Chittenden, asked the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on May 2 to add a sentence to the disorderly-conduct statute so that intentional or reckless behavior that \"substantially impairs the effective conduct of a meeting of a public body\" could be charged.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6252963,"Bankers group urges clearer support for legislative working groups to avoid open‑meeting burdens",234,3149000,3383000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3184297-ed28118fc92ccbee22fe643689f0b63e&start=3149&end=3383","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3184297-ed28118fc92ccbee22fe643689f0b63e/thumbnail_3149000.jpg","/articles/6252963/Vermont/Bankers-group-urges-clearer-support-for-legislative-working-groups-to-avoid-openmeeting-burdens","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6252963-de3c079da1ef139f6df46b2fd74a7317/orig.mp4?Expires=1770936436&Signature=RUpMPSgef7d54lZpXYcz8zZw~oODsK9fuBupX1pkIXbVzl24kD-CKKd7KNahdnQs1rB1xNK6Ri7hSNMusEexQ8fozGMojwvDJrMFf-XUGmqsNFOmFVC5Kiw9pen4sJ7nOwvyOeU1u911zvoEFWx1Etw2HketAI0FnM2qy4SFNjJw-HkcLHGQbLqUcWFUgMduxicXIi1XZ4vWPISsMPglPw8LrCMotiRtycwUxm4fSZFX28ajoawvrdshaSx5a2ZkEDqHWlJW41U1o6r78z9ChwE5TwLcZvlyKYUZ7OxBSQcm-~tDTy7lFN2nInEGTKoBJ7wSJuZEF5oKwik907AqQg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chris Celia, president of the Vermont Bankers Association, told the House Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on May 2 that the Legislature’s practice of creating working groups without attaching agency or Legislative Counsel support can impose public-meeting obligations that slow or complicate the group’s work.

\"Long story short is it's not an issue of us being in favor of 59 or against 59, but it is an issue of how the legislature creates a working group that is not supported by an agency or legislative council,\" Celia said. He described a recent working group that required volunteers to host agendas, record meetings, and post recordings, and said the group ultimately relied on the state library system for technical support.

Celia recommended that future working groups include statutory direction to provide staff support (agency or Legislative Counsel) or adopt nonstatutory guidelines to help lay participants comply with public-meeting statutes. Committee members noted the point and said staff would consider whether guidance or statutory language could ease the administrative burden while preserving transparency.

No committee action was taken; members said they would note the concern as they continue work on S.59 and related procedural issues.

","Chris Celia of the Vermont Bankers Association told the committee that ad hoc working groups without agency or Legislative Counsel support face the same public-meeting obligations as public bodies, which hampers volunteer-led work and raises administrative burdens.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee questions provision letting public bodies discuss interest rates behind closed doors

Vermont lawmaker urges adding disorderly-conduct language to protect public meetings

Bankers group urges clearer support for legislative working groups to avoid open‑meeting burdens