Senate committee reviews S.59 changes to Vermont open meetings law, debates carve-outs and executive session rules

The Senate Committee on Government Operations on Feb. 20 began a line-by-line review of S.59, a bill that would amend Vermont's Open Meeting Law to clarify definitions, update the undue-hardship standard for access accommodations, and add a new basis for entering executive session to discuss interest rates on publicly financed loans.

At the committee meeting, Tucker Anderson, legislative counsel, walked members through the bill and said the proposal would split the statute's definition of "public body" and expressly carve out annual municipal meetings from that definition. "Annual meetings are not subject to the open meeting law because there is no public body involved," Anderson told the panel. Senator Ruth Hardy, sponsor of the bill, said the measure primarily cleans up language enacted last year and is intended as a vehicle for corrections, not for creating new exemptions.

The bill would (1) create a new subdivision excluding traditional annual municipal gatherings and representative town meetings from the definition of "public body;" (2) revise the statutory test for an "undue hardship" when a member of the public requests accommodation (for example, to attend remotely) by aligning factors with existing law and federal standards; and (3) add a new, limited ground for entering executive session so boards can discuss information "relating to the interest rates for publicly financed loans." The latter change was requested by board members of the Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA), Hardy said, because some lending-board members are also bankers and find public discussion of competing interest rates awkward.

Committee members questioned the carve-out for "representative town meetings," noting Brattleboro's representative town meeting was raised specifically by local senators. Several members highlighted the distinction between a "meeting of the voters" (a gathering of the public for town business) and a "meeting of a public body" (a convened board, council or committee). Anderson and Hardy emphasized the change is meant to reflect long-standing practice and avoid treating voter assemblies as public bodies subject to the same notice and procedural rules.

On the undue-hardship language, Anderson said the bill replaces the prior phrasing to track established legal standards used in disability-accommodation law and similar statutes. The revision focuses on whether compliance would require "significant difficulty or expense" in light of factors such as the overall size of the entity, availability of necessary personnel (not a higher "sufficiency" standard) and the entity's available resources (broadly defined to include rooms, heat and electricity, not only budget line items). Committee members asked whether emergencies are covered; Anderson clarified the bill's undue-hardship standard applies when a member of the public requests an accommodation and that "local emergency" rules (1 V.S.A. a7 312a) operate in a separate space.

Members also debated removing an undefined statutory label added last year, "nonadvisory," which created confusing subdivisions. Anderson said the bill simplifies the text by eliminating that term and restoring a clearer structure distinguishing public bodies with core decision-making powers (legislative, quasi-judicial, taxing, budgetary) from advisory bodies that only provide recommendations.

On the proposed executive-session addition, Hardy said the Vermont Economic Development Authority board asked for a limited basis to go into executive session when discussing interest rates on publicly financed loans because members who are bankers felt uncomfortable discussing rates in a recorded public forum. Anderson noted there are already bases for executive session tied to confidentiality under the Public Records Act, and committee members asked whether the new wording might be interpreted broadly to include other financial deliberations; members discussed whether statute changes or adjustments to the authorizing statutes for particular boards would be a better fix.

No formal votes were taken; committee members generally agreed the bill warrants further committee-level work. Hardy urged caution that S.59 not be used as a vehicle for broad, entity-specific exemptions from open-meeting requirements: "This was intended to be a vehicle for corrections for open meeting law. It is absolutely not intended to be a vehicle for everybody coming in and asking for exemptions from open meeting law," she said.

The committee scheduled follow-up consideration and indicated it may take S.59 up as a committee bill to continue drafting and to hear targeted testimony from affected municipal and quasi-governmental entities.