Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Foster Care topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances bill to exempt local foster-care review boards from Open Meetings Act for confidential case reviews
Summary
LB238 would remove local foster care review boards from Open Meetings Act coverage so volunteers can continue fully private virtual case reviews; proponents said virtual meetings increased volunteer participation, while the Attorney General's office testified neutrally in support of privacy goals.
Sen. Makayla Kavanaugh introduced LB238 to clarify how the Open Meetings Act applies to local foster care review boards and to allow those volunteer boards to continue meeting entirely in private, including by virtual means, when reviewing case-specific child welfare information.
Kavanaugh said local boards review children's case plans — which include private health and family information — and that the current partial exemption to the Open Meetings Act is confusing. "This bill proposes the broader exemption recommended by the assistant attorney general to further enable the local foster care review boards to do their review cases," Kavanaugh told the committee.
Monica Gross, executive director of the Foster Care Review Office, testified that local review boards are independent volunteers that make nonbinding recommendations to juvenile courts about safety, permanency and well-being. Gross said the boards "do not discuss any public business or formulate any public policy" and that statutes already deem foster children's case records confidential. She said virtual meetings during the COVID pandemic allowed more volunteers and stakeholders to participate and that the office has seen 600 to 900 participants monthly on virtual meetings. Gross urged advancement of LB238 to general file.
Ben Kinnison, an assistant attorney general, testified in a neutral capacity and said the Attorney General's Office enforces the Open Meetings Act. He said removing the local boards from the act would be consistent with prior exemptions the Legislature has enacted for entities handling confidential child information and would align the law with the statutory confidentiality of foster-care records.
Committee members asked about public transparency and the possibility of using open meetings with confidential records redacted; proponents said the nature of the boards' work is case-specific and largely private, and that filings and court records remain available through the juvenile court process. The hearing record shows 2 proponents and 5 opponents filed position comments for LB238, and no neutral comments.
Sen. Kavanaugh asked the committee to advance the bill with the technical input from the Attorney General's Office.
