Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witnesses urge site‑visit carve‑out, clearer agendas and executive‑session rules in S.59 debate
Summary
Testimony on S.59, a bill to amend Vermont—s open‑meeting law, focused on a requested exception for site inspections by quasi‑public bodies, clearer agenda language, and requirements around executive sessions and disclosure of publicly financed loan rates. No committee votes were recorded during the hearing.
Mara Collins, executive director of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, told the Senate Committee on Government Operations & Military Affairs on April 10 that S.59 should include an explicit exception allowing public bodies to conduct site inspections and field visits without live streaming.
Collins said VHFA has held public board meetings for 50 years and routinely posts agendas, minutes and a Zoom link for boardroom meetings, but said the agency—s annual board retreat and clustered site visits raise practical and privacy problems if required to be livestreamed. "This subsection 3 shall not apply to gatherings of a public body for purposes that include a site inspection or field visit," Collins read as the language she supports, and she told the committee the carve‑out is intended to preserve meaningful in‑person engagement with tenants, property owners and developers while keeping the meeting public through notices and minutes.
The request drew similar testimony from municipal officials and news media representatives who supported more targeted exemptions and other transparency reforms in the bill. Natalie Kanner, a member of the Charlotte Select Board, said local site visits commonly occur outdoors or on private property and are difficult to livestream: "Streaming into other people's private property feels much more invasive," she said, describing routine practices where the select board visits a site and then summarizes the visit later at a warned public meeting.
Media witnesses urged additional clarifications in the proposal. Mike Donahue, executive director of the Vermont Press Association, supported the bill but pressed for language that requires a formal public motion, second and vote to end an executive session. "There has to be a motion ... it has to be a second, it has to be an affirmative vote," Donahue said, saying current practice sometimes allows a single official to announce return from executive session without a vote.
John Flowers, senior reporter at the Addison Independent, urged the committee to require that minutes show start and end times for executive sessions and that agendas give plain‑language reasons for executive sessions rather than only statute citations. Flowers said public readers and reporters would benefit from knowing whether a body met in executive session for, for example, "reviewing an employee's performance" or "considering a land transaction," rather than seeing only a statutory cross‑reference.
Committee counsel and witnesses also debated one proposed exemption that would allow executive‑session treatment for "information relating to the interest rates for publicly financed loans." Legislative counsel Tucker Anderson told the committee that the provision refers not to general municipal borrowing but to discussions where public dollars would be lent to other entities and the body sets the loan interest rate. "This is the discussion of interest rates or publicly funded, i.e., public dollars being lent to other entities," Anderson said. Commenters including Donahue and Flowers said the public has an interest in transparency when government is setting loan terms for others.
Witnesses and the committee indicated they would take more testimony on specific language. Collins asked for a small wording change to ensure the exception covers clustered site inspections that include overnight travel or nonmeeting periods during a retreat; she said VHFA's general counsel wanted language to make clear the exception applies to "purposes that include a site inspection or field visit." No formal committee action or votes on S.59 were recorded during the portion of the hearing in the transcript.
The hearing also included discussion of other transparency proposals mentioned by press witnesses, including possible changes to the time allowed to correct an open‑meeting violation and a proposal to permit charging fees for inspection of public records; committee members said they expect additional testimony on those subjects in future sessions.
Ending: Committee members said the committee will take more testimony and continue deliberations on S.59 and related transparency bills; witnesses provided written testimony for the record and several asked to return for follow‑up as drafts evolve.
