Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Hybrid topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civic groups urge New York lawmakers to make hybrid public meetings permanent with safeguards
Summary
Witnesses at a joint Senate–Assembly hearing urged lawmakers to adopt Assembly Bill 10266 to make hybrid meetings permanent, require webcasting and posted recordings, allow remote public testimony, and add safeguards such as noting remote votes and using roll call for non‑unanimous votes.
A joint hearing of the Senate Standing Committee on Investigations and Government Operations and the Assembly Standing Committee on Government Operations heard testimony from civic groups on continuing and strengthening the state’s use of video conferencing for public meetings.
Rachel Foss, senior policy adviser for Reinvent Albany, told the committees the group "strongly support[s] having public bodies hold meetings that allow both in person and remote participation" and urged lawmakers to pass Assembly Bill 10266, which the witness said was negotiated with stakeholders and would comprehensively amend the open meetings law. Foss recommended that committee and other public meetings be webcast, that members’ remote participation be recorded in vote records, and that meeting videos be posted within five days and retained for five years.
The hearing brought similar recommendations from the New York Coalition for Open Government. Robin Gray, a board member of the coalition, said remote participation had "helped me tremendously" and argued hybrid systems increase accessibility for people with disabilities, caregivers and volunteer members who may not be compensated for travel. Gray said the coalition supports Assembly Bill 10266 "with conditions," including clear rules that remote participation be for legitimate reasons and transparent records when votes are cast remotely.
Susan Lerner of Common Cause New York said her group supports allowing the public to testify remotely but urged different rules for elected officials and for volunteer or appointed bodies. Lerner said hybrid arrangements are "workable" for volunteer entities and that elected officials should have a "strong preference for in person participation," with remote participation used only in specified emergencies. Lerner recommended that agendas indicate who will participate electronically, that the electronic platform remain free and contemporaneous (a live feed rather than a delayed posting), and that non‑unanimous votes taken in a video‑conferencing environment be by roll call.
Panelists repeatedly emphasized transparency measures. Witnesses urged that when members vote remotely the record should indicate that fact to guard against overuse, and that where members participate remotely the meeting should be webcast and the public be able to testify remotely. Foss noted the current temporary provisions of the open meetings law expire on 07/01/2026 and said this is an opportunity to adopt a permanent framework that preserves both in‑person accountability and expanded public access.
Witnesses also raised technical and security concerns. Lerner described early pandemic-era disruptions often called "Zoom bombing," in which unauthorized participants post objectionable content, and argued committees should have safeguards that allow halting a meeting if a substantial interruption occurs.
No vote or formal committee action was taken at the hearing; the committees closed after hearing the submitted and in‑person testimony. The hearing record includes advocates’ endorsements of A.10266 and a set of suggested transparency and technical safeguards for how hybrid meetings would operate if the legislature extends or modifies the open meetings law.
