Committee hears mixed concerns on S.59 changes to Vermont open meeting rules

The Senate Government Operations & Military Affairs Committee heard testimony on Thursday, April 17, about S.59, a bill that would amend Vermont’s open meeting law to require hybrid meetings and broaden recording and access duties for public bodies.

Witnesses representing regional planning commissions, communications union districts and community media groups pressed the committee to refine the bill’s language to avoid imposing impractical requirements on volunteers and entities that lack permanent meeting space or staff. Charlie Baker, executive director of the Chima County Regional Planning Commission, said the regional planning commissions “follow the open meeting law” and regularly advise local public bodies, and asked the committee to add specific exceptions for site inspections and field visits.

The request to exempt site inspections, Baker said, reflects “logistic difficulties” for public bodies that must inspect sites in the field. Baker and Catherine Dimitric, executive director of the Northwest Regional Planning Commission, also recommended an explicit working-group exemption to prevent routine volunteer working groups from being hampered by meeting-recording and hybrid-location duties.

Representatives of Vermont’s Communications Union Districts (CUDs) described a different problem: many CUDs do not have a fixed, staffed, in-person location. Matt Coda, appearing on behalf of the Vermont Communications Union District Association, said that requiring a single designated physical meeting place for large rural districts can effectively force participants to travel “two and a half hours” in some territories. Coda said CUDs are asking that S.59 recognize that some municipalities and district entities can “record and comply” while using an accommodation process when an individual requests in-person access closer to home.

Lauren Glendavidian of Vermont Access Network urged the committee to add a short phrase—"shall record or cause to be recorded"—so the statute explicitly contemplates third‑party recording by community media centers or access-management organizations. She also warned that hybrid meeting production and long-term storage impose costs for equipment, staffing and hosting and described hybrid coverage as an “unfunded mandate” for some municipalities.

Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, walked the committee through existing open-meeting law language and recent changes from Act 133. He emphasized that some requirements in the statute are already narrowly tailored: roll-call voting is required only when one or more members attend electronically and a vote is not unanimous; municipal exemptions for undue hardship exist and are judged on factors including size, staffing and budget; and statutory exceptions already cover certain field inspections and tax-assessment visits.

Committee members and witnesses discussed operational details the bill touches—how quickly a requester must ask for a local access point, whether a single request could compel a series of hybrid accommodations, and how “undue hardship” will be proved. Coda said requests for a local accommodation should be made when a meeting is warned so the district has notice to arrange a local space or help an individual access the meeting online. Anderson noted S.59’s existing text requires written requests at least two business days before a regular meeting and permits denial only for all-hazards events, emergencies or when compliance would impose an undue hardship.

No formal committee amendments or votes on S.59 were recorded in the transcript. The committee said it planned to refine language based on the testimony and present amendments at a later date.