Planning Commission to adopt new virtual‑attendance rule to comply with open‑meetings changes

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Staff attorney recommended adding a rule requiring planning commissioners who attend virtually to make their faces visible for roll call, speaking and voting, to comply with recent changes to open‑meetings law; staff suggested any adoption take effect at the commission's next regular meeting to align with statute effective date.

The Planning Commission discussed proposed amendments to its rules of order to conform to recent changes in Arkansas open‑meetings law that govern virtual attendance and verification for governing bodies.

Senior Assistant City Attorney Blake Finnington presented recommended language requiring planning commissioners attending virtually to ensure their faces are visible during roll call to establish quorum, anytime they are speaking and when voting on questions. Finnington said the General Assembly required city councils to meet in person but allowed other governing bodies to permit remote attendance with identity verification and the ability for the public and other members to observe votes and hear remote members. He recommended adopting rules similar to the memo provided in the packet and suggested that if the commission adopts the rule it take effect at the next planning commission meeting because the statute’s effective date is August 5.

Commissioners asked whether the rule applies only to official meetings (not agenda sessions) and whether it would affect committee or long‑range planning meetings. Finnington and staff clarified it governs official meetings where quorum and voting occur; it does not apply to agenda sessions, though it could apply to committee meetings if a quorum of the full commission is present and votes are taken. Commissioners asked procedural questions about whether the action is the commission’s rule and whether adoption constitutes a recommendation to council; staff clarified this is the commission’s rule.

Staff recommended including a condition that any adoption of the virtual‑attendance rule become effective at the next regular planning commission meeting so the statute’s August 5 effective date is respected. No final vote was taken at the agenda‑setting session.