Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee narrows public‑comment language, requires entities to adopt policies in Senate Bill 21‑80
Summary
Lawmakers amended a bill to require covered public entities to develop a public‑comment policy and clarified which entities are covered; committee approved the amendment and later recommended the bill with one dissent.
Lawmakers clarified which governmental organizations must provide public comment opportunities and required covered bodies to adopt a public‑comment policy.
A legislative committee considered an Attorney General’s amendment to Senate Bill 21‑80 that replaces the term “political subdivision” with a defined list of “public entities” and adds a requirement that covered entities “shall develop a policy” governing public comment. The committee adopted the AG amendment with the discussed changes and later recommended the bill for a do‑pass as amended; final committee passage recorded 9 yeas, 1 nay, 3 absent/not voting.
Why it matters: The bill codifies long‑standing guidance encouraging public comment at meetings and attempts to standardize which organizations must provide comment and how they may limit its scope or time. Supporters said codification would reduce inconsistent practices among local bodies; critics worried the language is either too broad or too permissive.
Key points and debate: The AG’s amendment enumerated entity types (counties, cities, school districts, park districts, water resource districts and the like) rather than using the broader phrase “political subdivision,” because that term appears with different statutory definitions in the Century Code. Committee members debated whether to use “public entity,” “governing body” or “political subdivision” and whether the statute should require entities to adopt a policy or simply allow them to do so. The adopted amendment replaced “political subdivision” with “public entity” in multiple places, removed a permissive “may” in one line and inserted “shall” to require a policy in another.
A recurring point in debate was whether entities should be allowed to limit public comment to topics on the meeting agenda or to items from the immediately preceding meetings. Representative Killeen supported allowing entities to adopt a topic limit as policy, citing difficulties staff face responding to on‑the‑spot complaints; other members warned that a permissive “may” could encourage entities to restrict comment by policy. Representative Bosley urged that requiring an entity policy would give predictability.
Votes and next steps: The committee voted to adopt the AG amendment (roll call on amendment: 10 yeas, 0 nays, 3 absent/not voting) and later recommended a do‑pass as amended (committee vote on bill: 9 yeas, 1 nay, 3 absent/not voting). Representative Balinski will carry the bill forward.
Ending: Committee members instructed staff to make the drafted edits consistent across the text. The bill now proceeds to the next stage with explicit language that covered entities must develop and publicize a public‑comment policy.
