Committee adopts draft amending disorderly conduct rules for public-body meetings, flags chair vs. body rule adoption

The Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee on a voice vote approved draft 2.2 of S.59, a bill that adds language from the Vermont Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Colby into the state disorderly conduct statute and expressly applies that standard to meetings of public bodies.

The vote followed a legal briefing by Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, who told the committee that House Judiciary suggested folding the court’s two illustrative standards into the statute and applying them to the subdivision governing "disturb[ing] any lawful assembly or meeting of persons." Anderson said Judiciary recommended adding language that defines disruptive conduct to include “conduct that causes an assembly or meeting to terminate prematurely or consists of numerous and sustained efforts to disrupt an assembly or meeting after being asked to desist.”

The move to put the Colby examples directly into statute is intended to clarify for law enforcement and prosecutors which objective criteria are relevant in charging disorderly conduct in the context of public meetings. Anderson told the committee that the change is meant to “clarify for law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys” that the court's standard applies in this statutory context and that the statute will explicitly include meetings of public bodies.

Members debated a separate but related question raised by Judiciary: whether rules governing public comment and order should be "established by the chairperson" (the current statutory phrasing in 1 V.S.A. § 312(h)) or instead "adopted" by the public body, and whether adoption should be mandatory. Anderson read the existing statutory clause, noting it states the public shall be given a reasonable opportunity to speak "as long as order is maintained," and that "public comment shall be subject to reasonable rules established by the chairperson."

Committee members expressed concern that leaving rulemaking solely to the chair concentrates control over what speech is permitted and over the chair’s authority to pause or terminate a meeting. Some members said moving adoption to the full public body — and possibly requiring bodies to adopt rules — would provide clearer, more formalized notice before rules are enforced. Other members cautioned that shifting those responsibilities could alter municipal authorities and wanted more testimony and time to consider mandatory changes.

Anderson and several members emphasized that under the proposed language a law-enforcement response for a disorderly conduct charge requires objective triggers and prior action by the chair or body. He said the two Colby examples are not content‑based tests but focus on volume, force and persistence: a brief disturbance in a long assembly may not meet the "substantial impairment" threshold, but a meeting that must stop or repeated, sustained disruptions after an order to desist could.

After discussion the committee approved the draft as presented (motion to approve draft 2.2), with the sponsor and staff noting they expect to continue work on related open‑meeting and public‑participation issues in a later bill cycle rather than making immediate mandatory changes to the rules-adoption language.

The committee recorded the vote as 10-0-1 in favor of the current draft 2.2. Members who announced their votes were read on the record during the roll call.

The committee’s action places the Colby examples into the statutory definition of disorderly conduct for meetings of public bodies and flags two follow-up policy questions for future consideration: whether public-comment rules should be adopted by the full public body rather than set by the chair and whether adoption of such rules should be mandatory for all public bodies.