Senate committee reviews S.59 amendment to clarify disorderly-conduct rule for public meetings

Senator Bridal Palibor, speaking at a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting, said S.59 incorporates language from a Vermont Supreme Court decision into the state disorderly-conduct statute to clarify when disruptive behavior at public meetings may be charged.

"This is a bill that originated in the senate and has to do with the open meeting law," Senator Bridal Palibor said, adding that the House returned the bill with amendments and that "the one that much concerns this committee here has to do with the disorderly conduct provision." The bill text places the policy change in Title 13, Section 1026 and adds a definition that a person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent or recklessly creating a risk of public inconvenience or annoyance, the person "disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons" by conduct that "substantially impairs the effective conduct of an assembly or meeting," including conduct that either causes the assembly to terminate prematurely or consists of numerous and sustained efforts to disrupt the meeting after being asked to desist.

Tucker Anderson, Legislative Council, told the committee the change mirrors the construction the Vermont Supreme Court ordered in State v. Colby (decision rendered in 2009) because the court found the prior wording was overbroad and risked criminalizing protected speech. "The construction that the Supreme Court ... put together for [Section 1026 subdivision a(4)] is exactly the language that the House has now put into the statute," Anderson said, characterizing the amendment as primarily clarifying the state of the law for law enforcement and public bodies.

Committee members discussed where the line would be drawn between protected speech and punishable disruption. Anderson cited the court’s examples distinguishing brief interruptions from sustained disruptions — for example, a roughly 30‑second interruption during an eight‑minute speech was not deemed a substantial impairment in the court’s analysis, while longer or repeated conduct that prevents the meeting from proceeding could meet the statutory threshold. Committee members also noted that the open meeting law already permits a chair to adopt reasonable rules for public participation, such as time limits or comment constraints, and that some public bodies already use those rules to manage meetings.

No formal roll-call vote on S.59’s disorderly-conduct provision was recorded in the transcript; toward the end of the discussion committee members indicated they were comfortable moving forward with the House changes and that Senate Government Operations (GovOps) would concur. The committee did not adopt additional rulemaking or guidance in S.59; those items were left for possible future work, according to counsel.

Why it matters: The amendment seeks to narrow the scope of the disorderly‑conduct statute as applied to public meetings so that enforcement focuses on conduct that actually prevents a public body from conducting its business, rather than on short or isolated expressions of dissent. Supporters said the change is intended to reduce uncertainty for law enforcement and meeting chairs while protecting First Amendment interests.

Questions and next steps: Committee counsel said further policy guidance or rulemaking for local bodies had been proposed in the bill’s original version but was not included in the House amendments; those elements could be considered separately in the future. The transcript does not record a formal enactment vote on S.59’s disorderly‑conduct amendment during this session.