Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Virtual Meetings Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff outlines legal, technical limits for video attendance under Texas open-meetings rules
Summary
Planning staff told the Planning and Design Commission on Feb. 6 that Texas open-meetings rules require a physical quorum and a physically present presiding officer for decision-making boards that permit remote members, and that remote sites must maintain continuous two-way audio and video.
Planning department staff briefed the Planning and Design Commission on Feb. 6 about legal and technical requirements for permitting video conference attendance at decision-making commission meetings under the Texas open-meetings rules.
Staff summarized advice received from the attorney’s office and the relevant portion of state law, identifying the Texas Local Government Code provisions governing remote participation (staff cited the statute by chapter and section during the briefing). The two central compliance points staff emphasized were that a full physical quorum must be present in the meeting room and the presiding officer (the chair) must be physically present. Staff said every remote location must provide continuous two-way audio and video so that each participant is visible and audible to the rest of the meeting and to members of the public.
Staff also said that if a remote connection drops during a meeting, the remote participant is counted as absent for that portion of the meeting and that the meeting must be recessed if technical problems prevent compliance. The department recommended verifying venue equipment and obtaining IT support for any meeting that allows remote participation; staff said the council chambers has the capacity but some alternate meeting locations may not. Staff added that live transmission (streaming) is required for meetings that include remote participants and that IT personnel should be present to monitor the connection during the meeting.
Commissioners asked follow-up questions about practical limits, including whether remote participants would be required to appear from an office or home rather than a hospital or other setting. Staff answered that the statute does not specify where remote participants must be located but suggested a home or office would be the reasonable expectation and that questions about capacity or fitness to participate would be an ethical, not statutory, matter.
Staff noted decision-making boards such as the Planning and Design Commission are subject to the same video-attendance requirements that apply to the city council; those rules differ from rules that may apply to advisory boards where virtual quorum rules can be more permissive. Staff recommended further steps if the commission wishes to permit virtual attendance, including equipment verification, IT staffing and confirmation of the location and format in advance of any meeting that will offer remote participation.
The commission did not make a policy decision at the Feb. 6 meeting; staff’s presentation was a briefing and the commission directed staff to continue reviewing options and requirements.
