SB 89 – Serial meetings and electronic attendance of public meetings

Senator Gard has introduced SB 89 which regulates, among other things, electronic “attendance” of public officials at public meetings and application of the open door law to “serial meetings” of public officials.

If a public official “attends” a meeting by electronic means — telephone or video conference, for example, the official cannot participate in final action at the meeting or be considered “present” at the meeting (which matters for purposes of establishing a quorum.) I don’t know that I approve of this provision. I’m not rabidly opposed by any means, but if video conferencing is sophisticated enough to make an official’s “virtual” presence functionally the same as his or her physical presence, it seems a little backward to make a fetish out of the official’s physical presence. I can see where attending by telephone would not necessarily be sufficient. The public would be unable to gauge how the official was reacting to new information or even whether he was paying attention at all. But if the video equipment was set up so that the public could see and hear the official just as well as if he or she were physically present, it wouldn’t seem to make a great deal of difference. I’ve been in a situation where a medical emergency rendered a public official unable to travel. No quorum was possible and the project they were going to approve had to be delayed a week. I don’t know that we would have actually dragged video equipment into the official’s home, but it would have been nice to have the option.

The part of the bill addressing “serial meetings” limits the practice of using multiple meetings of less than a quorum between a series of different officials to circumvent the open door laws. Say you have a 5 person board comprised of Officials A, B, C, D & E. First A & B get together to discuss the issue; then B & C get together, then C & A get together. They go into the public meeting with their majority vote all set with no need for public discussion. That’s the abuse the law is designed to eliminate. And, to the extent it happens, it should be eliminated. But, to the extent it makes government even less wieldy and public officials less able to do their jobs efficiently, I suppose it’s unfortunate.