Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senator Runstead explains no vote on Open Meetings Act amendment
Summary
Senator Runstead and other senators explained opposition to Senate Bill 129, arguing the bill's remote-attendance provisions could shield commissioners from public scrutiny; the bill nonetheless passed on final passage.
Senator Runstead provided a floor explanation for his no vote on Senate Bill 129, an amendment to the Open Meetings Act, saying the measure as written would allow appointed commissioners to participate remotely without proving their need for accommodation.
"This bill is written, sloppily as seems like all the Democrat bills are, [and] is allowing a person to just simply say, I have some kind of a disability and thus can go remote and not have to face the public," Runstead said on the floor as his formal no-vote explanation.
Why it matters: Runstead said the Open Meetings Act's purpose is public access and accountability for appointed bodies and that the bill's language could let commissioners avoid in-person public engagement by asserting a disability without a required verification mechanism. He singled out the Michigan Public Service Commission as an example of a body whose members should be required to appear in person to answer questions, saying the public expects face-to-face accountability.
What the record shows: The Secretary announced the final tally for SB 129 as 20 Aye, 16 No, and 1 Excused; the bill passed. Senators Bellino and Tice also asked that their no-vote explanations be included in the journal.
Discussion vs. decision: Runstead framed his remarks as a no-vote explanation rather than a motion or amendment; the chamber recorded the roll call and proceeded with final passage.
