Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Author and advocates press for clearer board-packet posting rules; debate over 'full business day' timing
Summary
Peter Fritz, author of SB1651, and supporters urged the committee to require board packets to be posted more than two full business days before meetings to close ambiguity in OIP interpretations. Commissioners who administer boards said state calendar posting and site control issues complicate compliance.
Senate Bill 1651, which would require board packets to be posted at least more than two full business days before public meetings, drew testimony Feb. 4 from bill author Peter Fritz and supporters including Ben Kreps and the League of Women Voters.
Fritz said he proposed the change because some boards were posting meeting packets late; he argued the bill’s wording — "more than two full business days" — avoids ambiguity created by OIP interpretations that treat "business day" as any part of a day. Fritz told the committee he preferred clearer language to prevent repeated interpretations that shorten the effective notice period.
Ben Kreps (Public First) and others expressed support. Peter Fritz and other witnesses noted accessibility issues for people with disabilities: testimony from an attorney and a board chair with responsibilities for posting said agencies often lack direct control over the website where packets are hosted, which can complicate timely posting. The Commission on Fatherhood chair explained that some smaller boards lack administrative staff and rely on external website administrators, making compliance with a strict posting window harder in practice.
Ending: Committee members heard alternatives and clarifying options but did not adopt final language Feb. 4; the committee will consider the matter further when it reconvenes for decision-making Feb. 6.
