[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-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],{"_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",6246723,"mediaKeyId","3216448-2c7bd98543b031a6ec5f6088d12c5472","parentId",3216448,"title","Committee revises S.59 open‑meeting bill to limit hybrid meetings to state bodies, add cybersecurity and clarify recording and posting rules","audioSeconds",3719,"startMs",29000,"endMs",3748000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3216448-2c7bd98543b031a6ec5f6088d12c5472&start=29&end=3748","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3216448-2c7bd98543b031a6ec5f6088d12c5472/thumbnail_29000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6246723/Vermont/Committee-revises-S59-openmeeting-bill-to-limit-hybrid-meetings-to-state-bodies-add-cybersecurity-and-clarify-recording-and-posting-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6246723-14a18b5c6dffdccca55d73e12ad35989/orig.mp4?Expires=1774940018&Signature=bTdLsajYopVAEIyf34wNtp137HVrplNRS2awhoERSZA6QpGTp7LtXD7UV6p7-ctVA43woZemhabqxniTH0gVLnbiDamSd8RxsoaoqbvM1HoSXASauZnLxQ3yFGqJb6SbjnrH5CMfRQzq0AgEeOvcCpsYOCp5LRvtAn3XfwBaKj4bUje~7lnYucWPJVxtbJCpNRE6VaM9btNchnPIAcezf3i4rRUDJw2Qi-Awb1oPQ~-kaIMbLlE4zMLLkQ4L6NK7VK-jyf5xQ48j8-BRIs2KmFiyMD01Erpjtv0PSaGUBnQy9IgzRolrWmTaeWOvYuUjIS9vYkUQ1y6uX2HIRKur1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-08T07:12:40Z","article","At a Government Operations & Military Affairs committee meeting, legislative counsel Tucker Anderson walked members through the committee’s proposed “strike‑all” for S.59, the open‑meeting law bill the panel has been amending.

The committee’s revisions narrow the bill’s hybrid‑meeting requirement to state public bodies, add a recording and posting requirement for local public bodies (with limited site‑inspection and field‑visit exceptions), change how notices and agendas may be posted in some municipalities, expand training requirements for certain advisory members, and add cybersecurity and a narrow loan‑interest confidentiality basis for entering executive session.

The committee moved to make explicit that the hybrid‑meeting provision applies only to state public bodies. “This subdivision 3 applies exclusively to state public bodies,” Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, said as he reviewed the draft, adding that the change is intended to make clear that local public bodies are not captured by the hybrid requirement.

On recording, the draft adds a local‑level requirement that a local public body “shall record or cause to record” meetings and post the recording to a designated electronic location. The draft also carves out gatherings that are site inspections or field visits from the recording and posting requirement.

The bill’s posting rules were amended to allow more flexibility in where a municipal body posts notices of special meetings. Under current law the notice must be posted at the municipal clerk’s office and at least two other designated public places in the municipality (or a neighboring municipality). The committee’s draft would allow posting within the municipality’s boundaries in fewer locations in some cases, a change that drew concerns from members worried that posting outside frequented local places could reduce public notice.

The committee also proposed expanding the secretary of state’s training requirement. Under existing practice the training is required for certain municipal and state chairs and managers; the draft would require members of a state advisory body to take the secretary of state’s training if the advisory body is composed entirely of members who are not government officers or employees.

Separately, the draft adds cybersecurity as a listed basis for entering executive session and narrows confidential‑business‑information protections related to publicly financed loans so that the provision would apply only when the public body is a state public body and the creditor for the loan. Anderson said the narrower language was intended to avoid creating an interpretation that would apply to municipal borrowing.

Charlie Baker of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission told the committee he supported explicit language exempting site inspections and field visits from recording and posting requirements because bodies such as development review boards must sometimes inspect sites without conducting formal business there. “Development review boards, being able to just go out to see a site,” Baker said, describing why the exemption matters.

Committee members flagged several pieces for additional testimony. The secretary of state’s office was scheduled to appear at a subsequent meeting to discuss the posting and training language. One committee member said the panel should be willing to hold the bill longer to vet proposals related to disruptions and public‑safety exceptions.

No formal vote or final action on S.59 was recorded at the meeting; committee members said they expect to receive additional testimony and refine the draft further.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Government Operations-2025-05-07-2:00PM","oneSentenceSummary","At a Government Operations & Military Affairs committee meeting, legislative counsel Tucker Anderson walked members through the committee’s proposed “strike‑all” for S.59, the open‑meeting law bill the panel has been amending.","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},6246719,"Sheriff and municipal attorney tell committee repeated disruptions are shutting down town business; lawmakers weigh legal limits",2019,1156000,3175000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3216448-2c7bd98543b031a6ec5f6088d12c5472&start=1156&end=3175","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3216448-2c7bd98543b031a6ec5f6088d12c5472/thumbnail_1156000.jpg","/articles/6246719/Vermont/Sheriff-and-municipal-attorney-tell-committee-repeated-disruptions-are-shutting-down-town-business-lawmakers-weigh-legal-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6246719-a693cf8edd2fa346460706f404c53b0b/orig.mp4?Expires=1774937024&Signature=cSR2UabfiVMCzCQEB8-OwcL2lZr7xU5ACQvMsIn8DhuUn5szMuRQxBaXFDj8x0BTGPsxNTuK4HBt-LIY8zAnbdxz2c5CU3OxCZhM3KMwmxgZEICMj8ojMVvqavhlWBVVZRfcQFIWnUwuzKXD4RODQqhE7IdSiRE3eGiOfLoEr4XuxD200XOkbQTEZqAyV9W~lWS2zfXvT3hGsztXbMLxsCwZ47qZqq7pXDQFc9aFi2jb5tunlhHx9shH~MPFtn5Rip2s0HvM8KjIY9OkDXrcCg2wC9xex2s63RLVPh9IH0Qri283YVuWScHgkrV0UrHlV~IFDB~loV-oQf8PT4~ALg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sheriff David Fox and municipal attorney Sarah Buxton told the Government Operations & Military Affairs committee that repeated disruptions by the same individuals have forced some small towns to change operations, pay for law enforcement presence at meetings, and in some cases close town offices to walk‑in business.

“Where we run into, where we’re contacted to attend meetings because they have people that are disruptive,” Sheriff David Fox said, describing repeated calls to provide a law‑enforcement presence at public meetings. He told the committee that the presence of deputies is sometimes a deterrent but that the same individuals often return and continue disruptive conduct.

Sarah Buxton, a former state representative who is a municipal attorney and a select‑board member in Mendon, said the town had closed its office to the public and now operates by appointment because of threatening behavior. Buxton told the committee Mendon has a $60,000 contract with the Rutland County Sheriff’s Office to provide coverage and that the town now requires law‑enforcement presence for some meetings. “When we closed down our town clerk, closed down our office, we lost our town clerk,” Buxton said, and described repeated disruptions that led the town to adopt new rules limiting public access to buildings until law enforcement is present.

Committee members discussed remedies. Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, outlined the legal constraints: the Vermont Constitution and federal First Amendment protections make it difficult to block an individual from contacting elected officials in their official capacity, he said, and criminal or civil liability generally applies only once conduct crosses into harassment, stalking, or similar offenses. “There’s very few ways to block an individual member of the public from directly contacting you in your capacity as a governmental officer,” Anderson said, while noting that when conduct becomes threatening or harassing it may be subject to separate criminal enforcement.

Buxton and Sheriff Fox described practical consequences: towns running by appointment, public meetings adjourned until deputies arrive, and volunteers resigning because they do not want to face repeated harassment. Buxton suggested municipalities adopt clear rules of conduct and cooling‑off measures such as temporary virtual‑only participation for individuals who are removed under adopted rules. “If a person is so disruptive and they are found to be so under already adopted…municipal rules, they could be asked to participate virtually for 30, 60, or whatever days,” Buxton said.

Some committee members expressed reluctance to curtail public rights. One lawmaker noted the tension between preventing disruption and preserving free expression, and cautioned against drafting overly broad limits that could ensnare legitimate petitioning and news‑gathering. The committee heard examples of towns that now require deputies at meetings as a contracted service and that have experienced difficulty filling board seats after sustained harassment.

No statutory change was adopted at the meeting. Committee members asked for additional research, including examples from other states (committee members referenced California’s Brown Act as an illustrative model), and signaled they might hold the bill longer to consider a separate, more focused approach to vexatious behavior and public‑meeting management.","Sheriff David Fox and municipal attorney Sarah Buxton testified that a small number of frequently disruptive individuals have forced some town offices to restrict access, prompted contracts for deputy presence, and contributed to volunteer resignations; the committee discussed constitutional limits and possible statutory tools but took no formal","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee revises S.59 open‑meeting bill to limit hybrid meetings to state bodies, add cybersecurity and clarify recording and posting rules

Sheriff and municipal attorney tell committee repeated disruptions are shutting down town business; lawmakers weigh legal limits