Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers weigh bill to preserve public comments and require committee explanations of influence
Summary
House bill 11‑14 would require committees to preserve written and remote public comments in each bill’s permanent legislative record and to report how those comments affected committee recommendations. Supporters argued it would increase transparency and trust; opponents raised implementation and subjectivity concerns.
Representative Janet Lucas introduced HB 11‑14 to require that public comments — whether submitted in writing, during hearings, or through the state’s remote sign‑in system — be preserved in the permanent record for each bill, and that standing committees prepare a report explaining how public comments influenced their recommendations. Lucas said the change would give remote testimony equal weight to in‑person testimony and help the public understand how committees reached decisions.
The hearing drew sustained support from multiple legislators and civic witnesses. Testifiers cited recent hearings in which online comment tallies ran into the hundreds or thousands and said committees often did not record how that testimony was considered. Witnesses asked for practical changes: standard report templates, alignment of reporting with committee schedules, clearer ways to filter duplicates and out‑of‑state entries, and broader, consistent live streaming and recordkeeping across House and Senate committees.
Committee members raised implementation questions: how to count duplicates or out‑of‑state submissions, whether the requirement would be subjective if committees must explain why comments did or did not affect votes, and whether a fiscal note would be needed for staffing or website development. Sponsors and supporters said many records already exist and suggested targeted amendments to clarify terms like 'overseen' and to build in practical exemptions such as excluding duplicate content or comments from registered lobbyists.
Ending: The committee left the record open for written testimony. Sponsors said they would consider technical amendments to address identification of in‑state versus out‑of‑state submissions and the procedural mechanics for preparing explanatory reports.
