Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meeting Law S59 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews S.59 changes to open-meeting law: agendas, recordings, executive sessions and undue hardship
Summary
Legislative counsel and committee members walked through S.59 (as passed by the Senate), which amends the Open Meeting Law to clarify 'undue hardship,' adjust hybrid-meeting rules, require more specific agenda detail for certain meetings, change posting requirements for recordings, and add a voting requirement to conclude executive sessions.
Legislative Council drew the Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee through the major provisions of S.59 (as passed by the Senate), which makes technical and substantive changes to the state Open Meeting Law (Title 1 V.S.A. chapter covering public access to meetings).
Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, said S.59 revises the definition of “undue hardship” so that the relevant standard is the difficulty or expense to the unit of government rather than to the individual public body, and clarifies the factors to be considered (size of the entity, availability of necessary personnel and staff, resources and costs). Anderson said the bill aims to bring undue-hardship analysis closer to standards used for other accommodation contexts.
The bill removes a confusing reference to “non-advisory” public bodies, adds an explicit exception to the hybrid (in-person plus electronic) requirement for site inspections and field visits, and tightens the posting rules for meeting recordings: recordings must be posted for 30 days tied to the posting of minutes (minutes must be posted within five days). Anderson also noted a new agenda requirement: agendas must include "sufficient details" so the public understands the matters to be discussed and — when a proposed executive session is on an agenda — the agenda must say "proposed executive session." The committee discussed the practical effect of the “sufficient details” language and how it might generate grievance hearings if members of the public challenge agendas, but Anderson said agenda items can still be amended at the meeting itself.
On executive sessions, S.59 would require an affirmative vote to conclude an executive session in the same manner as the vote to enter it, and it adds an additional permitted basis for executive session: discussion of information relating to interest rates for publicly financed loans. Anderson said the bill takes effect on passage.
Committee members asked for clarification on whether some school-board matters and small advisory bodies would be affected; Anderson and others noted advisory bodies remain able to hold electronic-only meetings and the bill strikes the undefined “non-advisory” term to reduce confusion. Members also raised concerns about how to interpret “sufficient details” for agendas and whether enforcing that requirement could produce routine grievances. Anderson said a grievance process exists (1 V.S.A. § 314) but that agenda items may be amended at the meeting.
No final committee vote on S.59 was recorded during this session; counsel and members agreed to continue working on clarifications and implementation questions.
