Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House passes open-meetings revisions requiring public bodies to record meetings; debate centers on small-community burdens
Summary
The Utah House passed House Bill 16 on Jan. 18, 2006, requiring public bodies to keep unedited audio or other recordings of open meetings and clarifying that non‑agenda items brought up by the public may be discussed but not acted upon; the measure passed 46–26 and now goes to the Senate.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on Jan. 18 passed House Bill 16, a measure that would require public bodies to preserve complete, unedited recordings of open meetings and clarify how non‑agenda items raised by the public are handled.
Sponsor Representative Donaldson, presenting the bill and its amendment, said the measure is aimed at eliminating disputes over handwritten minutes and restoring public trust. "All this does is record everything so that it's there and it's correct," Donaldson said, arguing recordings make it easier to resolve disagreements about what was said.
The bill, as amended, requires governmental entities that hold public meetings to maintain an audio or other recording in addition to existing minute requirements. It also states that when a member of the public raises an item that is not on the agenda, the governing body may discuss it but may not take formal action on it during that meeting. Donaldson said the change is intended to prevent back‑door decisions while allowing public input.
Supporters pointed to compliance problems found in recent audits. "We found that there were a number of items that were not being complied with," Representative Harper said, recounting an audit of school boards that found cryptic or missing minutes and restricted public access. Proponents said modern, inexpensive recording technology makes implementation feasible for most jurisdictions.
Opponents raised concerns that mandatory recording and the restriction on considering non‑agenda items could discourage volunteer service in smaller communities and unduly limit local officials' flexibility. "If every single word every single comment that they make is now gonna be recorded and up to public scrutiny... I think it's really gonna limit the number of people" willing to serve, Representative Noel said.
Other questions focused on access and records retention. Representative Lawrence asked whether requesters would have to pay for copies of recordings; Donaldson said that copying costs would be handled under GRAMA (the state's records-access law). Representative Bigelow asked whether offensive or belligerent outbursts by members of the public would remain in the permanent record and whether such passages could be removed; Donaldson replied that keeping the tape can aid governing bodies if enforcement or legal action is necessary.
The bill includes an emergency provision to allow truly urgent matters to be considered. After debate and a successful motion to end debate by more than a two‑thirds vote, the House voted 46–26 to pass HB16. The bill will be referred to the Utah Senate for further consideration.
The floor debate also included technical clarifications about equipment, tape turnover and how smaller jurisdictions and community councils are treated; Representative Becker noted that certain neighborhood community councils are not public bodies under the bill's definition and would be excluded.
The House adopted Amendment No. 1, dated Jan. 18, 2006, which explicitly allows public members to raise non‑agenda items for discussion but prohibits action on such items during the same meeting. The sponsor waived summation during debate. The bill now moves to the Senate.
