Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transparency Livestreaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate tables livestreaming amendment after floor debate on technical, cost and legal risks
Summary
Senators debated a resolution that would require live audio-and-video streaming of Senate proceedings; an amendment that delayed implementation to Sept. 1 to allow vendor contracting and setup was tabled 12-11 after floor concerns about procurement timelines, recurring costs and procedural disruption if feeds fail.
The Missouri Senate debated a resolution aimed at requiring live-streaming of the chamber’s proceedings, then tabled an amendment that would have set implementation for Sept. 1.
The Senate substitute for resolution 668, offered by the senator from Lawrence, would require the chamber to add live video streaming in addition to existing audio streaming. “This change . . . allows us the amount of time until September 1 to get this up and running,” the senator from Lawrence said in explanation of an amendment adjusting the effective date to allow contracting and set-up with a third-party vendor.
Opponents on the floor raised logistical and budgetary objections, pressing that setting a firm date could be unrealistic given the need for an RFP and integration with existing systems. The Senate floor leader warned that if the live feed were to go down during debate, proceedings could be interrupted while the feed was restored — a risk he said would complicate scheduling and the chamber’s work. Senator from Platt also noted recurring vendor costs and asked whether numbers supported the timeline and procurement plan.
Senators debated whether the expenses and technical hurdles — including the likelihood of contracting with an external platform and the ongoing operating cost — had been fully vetted. One senator said the House’s vendor arrangement cost approximately $60,000–$65,000 a year, prompting questions about recurring funding and whether a similar vendor would be used.
By standing division the chamber voted to table the amendment to the resolution. The chair announced the amendment had been tabled by a 12–11 vote; subsequent floor procedure left the resolution on the table rather than immediately enacting the change.
What happens next: Because the amendment to Resolution 668 was tabled, the Senate did not adopt an immediate live-streaming mandate or a firm implementation date. Sponsors said they would continue discussions with administration staff and the secretary’s office about RFP timing and costs before bringing the issue back to the floor.
Votes and formal action: The motion to table the amendment was decided in a standing division and reported as 12 ayes, 11 noes. The amendment and the resolution otherwise remain subject to further floor action or referral.
