Committee rejects bill allowing two elected local officials to meet privately; critics call it a ‘‘Trojan horse’’ for secret deliberations

Representative Bentley, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee Senate Bill 376 would align Arkansas with most other states by permitting two local elected officials — such as JPs, council members or school board members — to meet one-on-one without creating a public meeting. He argued the change would allow local officials to coordinate and serve constituents without fear of opportunistic public harassment. "They should be able to talk to each other about a good idea or a solution that's facing their constituents," Bentley said.

Opponents said the bill would create a wide open path for serial or “daisy-chain” meetings that could enable a group to deliberate and decide public business out of public view. Jimmy Cavins (testifying as a citizen and journalist) called SB376 “a wide open 14-foot gate with a sign in front that says 'corruption welcome,'” and warned that the bill would effectively undercut the recently passed open-meetings reform (Senate Bill 227). Attorney Joey McCutcheon, who has litigated open-meetings cases, urged rejection of SB376 and said it would permit “serial secret meetings” that eliminate transparency.

The Arkansas Press Association’s Andrew Bagley testified that the amendment attached to SB376 did not close the daisy-chain loophole; he said the new language would still allow pairs to meet sequentially and leak views through intermediaries to shape outcomes. Several sitting local officials, including leaders of quorum courts and municipal councils, also testified that the bill would reduce public trust and weaken open-government safeguards adopted earlier in the session.

Proponents reiterated that the bill was meant to protect ordinary conversations among local officials and that existing guardrails and an amendment were intended to prevent unlawful serial deliberation. Bentley said the amendment prohibits one official from telling another how they will vote, while still allowing background discussion.

After lengthy testimony from both sides and substantial public comment, the committee voted; the chair said, "All those opposed? No." The motion failed and the bill did not pass the committee.

Opponents said the committee’s decision preserves the protections created in Senate Bill 227, while proponents said they may pursue limited revisions later. The debate highlighted a split between officials who want greater flexibility in local governance and advocates who prioritize open deliberations and public oversight.