Panel debates redaction rules in Open Meetings Act bill as House and Senate versions diverge

Senate Bill 99 — a bill to apply enhanced Open Meetings Act requirements to county boards of education and the Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners — drew detailed debate in committee about how and when school boards may redact archived video recordings.

Vice Chair Kagan, the bill sponsor, reviewed the underlying requirements: meeting materials and agendas must be posted at least 48 hours in advance, meetings must be livestreamed, archived video must be retained for five years, and minutes must be posted within 48 hours of approval. Kagan said the bill mirrors transparency rules already applied to many state agencies and aims to ensure local boards comply in the same way.

The central dispute involved a floor amendment offered by Senator Ready and later removed by the House. Senator Kagan and other supporters described the Ready amendment as intended to clarify redaction limits; critics argued it would go too far by excluding school‑provided curricular material from possible redaction even if that material were judged pornographic. The Pazam amendment — which the House accepted — allows redaction for pornographic or obscene events or when a student’s privacy is violated, with the requirement that the board notify the Open Meetings Board of the redaction.

After discussion, the committee voted to recede from the Ready floor amendment and then to concur on the cross‑file so the Senate and House versions match. The recede motion carried despite recorded opposition from Senators Simonaire, Carosa and Gallion. Committee staff noted that boards would retain some judgment in redaction decisions but must notify the Open Meetings Board when an archive is edited.

The committee recorded the recede and concurrence actions and moved on to other agenda items; the bill will proceed in matched form unless floor members alter it.