Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Meetings Disorderly Conduct topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vt. Rep. Harrison introduces H.145 to let chairs set rules, remove disruptive attendees up to 60 days
Summary
Representative Jim Harrison told the Government Operations & Military Affairs committee H.145 would allow chairs of public bodies to adopt rules governing public comment and add a new disorderly‑conduct provision authorizing temporary exclusion of disruptive members of the public for up to 60 days while preserving remote participation rights.
Representative Jim Harrison, a state representative from Chittenden, introduced H.145 to the Government Operations & Military Affairs committee on the bill’s intent and text. He said the bill would let chairs of public bodies adopt rules governing public comment and would add a new disorderly‑conduct subcategory to the statute to cover conduct that “substantially impairs the effective conduct of a meeting of a public body.”
Harrison told the committee the measure is aimed at protecting volunteer municipal officials who have resigned after repeated disruptive behavior at meetings. “One of the communities I represent has had several select board members resign in the past couple of years … because they’ve had the misfortune of having someone that’s been disruptive,” Harrison said. He said the bill seeks to balance those local needs with constitutional protections for speech and assembly.
Legislative counsel Chuck Rangnick cautioned the panel about legal nuances in the interaction between meeting rules and First Amendment rights. “The meeting law requires that [an electronic] platform allow for direct access and participation of the public,” Rangnick said, adding that the law does not require a microphone remain open for the entirety of a meeting and that reasonable remote‑participation rules can be applied.
Committee members pressed for specifics. Representative Coffey asked whether someone excluded from in‑person attendance could still participate remotely; Harrison and counsel confirmed the bill, as drafted, would allow remote attendance and that muting or limiting remote speaking could be implemented under local rules. Committee members also flagged the subjectivity of judging what counts as “disruptive” and noted the potential for local rules to vary widely.
No committee vote or formal referral was recorded in the transcript. Committee members indicated counsel would continue to review legal interactions and policy choices in H.145 before further action. The transcript shows committee discussion only; there was no motion, vote, or final committee directive noted in the record.
The bill references existing disorderly‑conduct law and proposes the additional statutory language to allow temporary exclusions; the transcript records counsel citing 13 V.S.A. § 1026 and 1 V.S.A. § 312(h) in the legal discussion.
The committee did not set a final date or recorded action on H.145 in the excerpted record.
