Committee revises S.59 open‑meeting bill to limit hybrid meetings to state bodies, add cybersecurity and clarify recording and posting rules

At a Government Operations & Military Affairs committee meeting, legislative counsel Tucker Anderson walked members through the committee’s proposed “strike‑all” for S.59, the open‑meeting law bill the panel has been amending.

The committee’s revisions narrow the bill’s hybrid‑meeting requirement to state public bodies, add a recording and posting requirement for local public bodies (with limited site‑inspection and field‑visit exceptions), change how notices and agendas may be posted in some municipalities, expand training requirements for certain advisory members, and add cybersecurity and a narrow loan‑interest confidentiality basis for entering executive session.

The committee moved to make explicit that the hybrid‑meeting provision applies only to state public bodies. “This subdivision 3 applies exclusively to state public bodies,” Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, said as he reviewed the draft, adding that the change is intended to make clear that local public bodies are not captured by the hybrid requirement.

On recording, the draft adds a local‑level requirement that a local public body “shall record or cause to record” meetings and post the recording to a designated electronic location. The draft also carves out gatherings that are site inspections or field visits from the recording and posting requirement.

The bill’s posting rules were amended to allow more flexibility in where a municipal body posts notices of special meetings. Under current law the notice must be posted at the municipal clerk’s office and at least two other designated public places in the municipality (or a neighboring municipality). The committee’s draft would allow posting within the municipality’s boundaries in fewer locations in some cases, a change that drew concerns from members worried that posting outside frequented local places could reduce public notice.

The committee also proposed expanding the secretary of state’s training requirement. Under existing practice the training is required for certain municipal and state chairs and managers; the draft would require members of a state advisory body to take the secretary of state’s training if the advisory body is composed entirely of members who are not government officers or employees.

Separately, the draft adds cybersecurity as a listed basis for entering executive session and narrows confidential‑business‑information protections related to publicly financed loans so that the provision would apply only when the public body is a state public body and the creditor for the loan. Anderson said the narrower language was intended to avoid creating an interpretation that would apply to municipal borrowing.

Charlie Baker of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission told the committee he supported explicit language exempting site inspections and field visits from recording and posting requirements because bodies such as development review boards must sometimes inspect sites without conducting formal business there. “Development review boards, being able to just go out to see a site,” Baker said, describing why the exemption matters.

Committee members flagged several pieces for additional testimony. The secretary of state’s office was scheduled to appear at a subsequent meeting to discuss the posting and training language. One committee member said the panel should be willing to hold the bill longer to vet proposals related to disruptions and public‑safety exceptions.

No formal vote or final action on S.59 was recorded at the meeting; committee members said they expect to receive additional testimony and refine the draft further.