Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee debates codifying livestreaming of meetings; members cite costs, accessibility and IT security
Summary
Members discussed formalizing live streaming of committee and full legislature meetings in the legislative manual. Supporters said the county already streams meetings and codifying it would protect access; staff and IT concerns centered on security, equipment and venue accessibility while courthouse elevator work will move upcoming meetings.
The Rules Committee discussed whether to codify live streaming of legislative meetings in the legislative manual during its Feb. 17 session, with members and several members of the public urging the committee to formalize the practice and others urging consideration of technical and security requirements.
Legislators said the county began live streaming committee and full meetings in 2024 after a $60,000 appropriation to the IT department and that the historic courthouse setup remains a work in progress. "We're live streaming this meeting. We're live streaming our full 1," a committee member noted during debate, arguing codification would lock in public access rather than leaving it subject to change.
Several legislators and members of the public urged moving forward quickly. A public speaker with experience in large‑scale livestreams said the technology is straightforward and urged the county to codify live streaming now, offering to consult on affordable, secure setups. Other speakers described how smaller towns in the county already stream meetings and allow remote public participation.
County staff and other legislators flagged practical issues: the courthouse's elevator will be out for 6–8 weeks for reconstruction, forcing committee meetings into Room 102 downstairs; that shift could affect camera placement and audio. Legislators also raised IT security and record‑keeping concerns if livestreams become two‑way (allowing remote participants to interact in real time). Committee staff said streaming currently uses county IT resources and that two‑way public participation raises additional security and retention issues that would require IT policies and possibly additional staff time.
Committee members noted available options: codify a basic requirement that meetings be livestreamed and allow IT to refine technical standards later, or draft a more prescriptive policy with detailed security and equipment specifications. Several members favored a first‑step approach — adopt a rule establishing livestreaming as a standard practice and then direct IT to produce an implementation plan that addresses accessibility (including the elevator work), security, storage, and a proposed budget for upgrades.
No final vote was taken; committee members asked IT to provide cost and feasibility information and for staff to draft language the committee could vote on at a future meeting.
