Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances measure clarifying 'public meeting' definition; senators debate risks of serial 1-on-1 deliberations
Summary
Senate Bill 376 clarifies that a meeting requires more than two members of a bureau, commission or governing body; supporters said it aligns statutory language with prior action, while critics warned it could allow serial one-on-one conversations that collectively decide public business without transparency.
Senate Bill 376, as presented to the Senate State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs Committee, would clarify that a public meeting occurs when “more than two members” of a bureau, commission or other governing body assemble to discuss public business. The sponsor said the change is a simple clarification to confirm the point made in earlier legislation and to harmonize the statute with how municipalities and counties operate.
Senators spent extended time debating the bill’s practical effects. Senator Tucker asked whether the bill could enable a “daisy-chain” of one-on-one conversations — for example, member A telling member B how they plan to vote, then B telling member C, and so on — that would effectively coordinate action outside a public meeting. Senator Tucker asked whether language could be added to prohibit intentional serial communications designed to subvert public deliberation; he said he might be open to supporting the bill if such language were adopted. Senator Hammer and others raised similar concerns about “polling” of members and whether the bill would meaningfully weaken transparency.
Legal counsel for the auditor’s office told the committee that the existing statutory enforcement remedies are limited: under current law a court may invalidate action taken as a result of a prohibited meeting, and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) contains misdemeanor penalties for negligent violations. Witnesses who opposed the bill — including the Arkansas Press Association and Robert Steinbach, an author on FOIA — urged caution and recommended anti-daisy-chain language be added.
Senator Clark said he would work with Senator Tucker and staff to draft an amendment that would prohibit intentional serial communications to subvert deliberation. Sponsor Clark asked the committee to pass the bill out with the agreement to return with agreed-upon amendment; senators agreed to work together. The committee voted to advance the bill as amended later in the session after additional amendment work and procedural clarifications were handled; however, committee discussion made clear there is significant interest in adding language that addresses serial one-on-one coordination and safeguards against subversion of open-meeting requirements.
