SmartTranscript of Senate Session - 3:15 p.m. - May 27, 2025

Select text to play as a video clip.

[154 seconds of silence] [Speaker 0 ]: Challenge. [Vice Chair]: Will the senate please come to order? We'll be taking up s fifty nine, which was passed by the house with proposal of amendment. The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? Senator from Rotland. [Speaker 0 ]: Thank you, mister president. So s fifty nine as it left the senate, many will remember had some changes to the open meeting law, which we fashioned at the request of different public bodies in the state. The House has added, I think eight new amended provisions to the bill. In Section two. They've added a new subdivision expressly stating that this applies exclusively to state public bodies. Also in Section two, they added a provision to clarify that municipalities may use a third party to record meetings. So the language would now read a public body of a municipality or political subdivision except advisory bodies shall record or cause to record the audio or video form. The new sentence was added so that third parties will be able to, for instance, T V stations would be able to record it, and that would suffice the open meeting provision. Another provision in Section two as a clause that allows municipalities to post notices of special meetings in neighboring municipalities. When the Senate sent the original bill over, it was clear that we wanted it just in the municipality affected, but some municipalities in the state don't have a central meeting place because they're very rural, and this would allow them to use the neighboring municipality post the notice if they so choose. Section two also includes a provision that would add that to the local public body and adds a clause at the end of subdivision d three that requires a public body when listing proposed executive session as an agenda item to also indicate the executive session. And again. This is, actually in concert with the provision that only allows them to open an executive by saying to the public body to those attending why they're going into executive session. So. This aligns with that. Section two as a list of individuals who are required to receive open meeting law training to include members of the state advisory body provided that the body does not have members who are already as government officer or employees subject to that open meeting law secretary of state, as I've been told, posts an open meeting law, YouTube video which can be used for training purposes. There's also There's also an amendment in Section three. To expressly authorized executive sessions for discussion of cyber security matters and again. Technically, this is already covered by the, phrase that's already in the bill about security. Cybersecurity is part of security. So even though it was not necessary to add that, the house added it in, and that's that. And then finally, the one that I think caused some questioning both within the Southern Permanent Operations Committee, and as you'll hear later in Senate Judiciary, every now and then there's a public meeting where someone, an individual shows up and is intent on disrupting that meeting in one fashion or another, stands up and makes a statement, sits down, stands back up, makes another statement. It It just continually reaches a point where the meeting has to be either adjourned or that individual has to sit down. So the Supreme Court of the state of Vermont in two thousand nine issued a ruling that has to do with this provision. And in section four of the amended bill, it expresses the intent of the general assembly that section five will amend the disorderly conduct statute to conform to the state versus Colby decision. And in that decision, it was decided by the Supreme Court that the way the statute is currently worded, it is a bit of an overreach. So this clarifies, defines, and limits the, provision to the only a couple of things which I'll I'll mention in a in a moment. But section four outlines the intent of the general assembly that we should do that. And then in section five, the definition of disorderly conduct is changed to include a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person with intent to cause public inconvenience or annoyance or recklessly creates a risk thereof without or recklessly creates a risk thereof without lawful authority disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons or, as used in this section, disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons means that the conduct that substantially impairs the effective conduct of an assembly or meeting, including conduct of, and there has to be two trigger points for this, causes an assembly or meeting to terminate prematurely or consists of numerous and sustained efforts to disrupt an assembly or meeting after being asked to desist. And if both of those provisions are present, then a citation for this disorderly conduct can be issued. And the meeting, by the way, includes a meeting of a public body as those terms are defined defined in title one. So for those who have attended meetings, this again clarifies and narrows the scope. Thanks to the Supreme Court decision, which basically looked at the whole statute as it exists now bit of an overreach. This carefully tailors a carve out, for meetings that, again, are forced to end prematurely or after sustained effort to disrupt it. Someone has said, okay. We've heard enough. Please desist. Please sit down, and we can continue with the meeting. And if at that point that doesn't occur, then a citation for decide disorderly conduct can be issued. So the Senate Committee on government operations with a five zero vote votes to concur with the house provisions. [Vice Chair]: The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of of amendment? Senator from Windham. [Speaker 2 ]: Thank you, mister president. And I want to thank the government operations committee for making us aware of the, proposed change in the disorderly conduct statute. As we heard, there was a Supreme Court case all the way back in two thousand nine, which and I'll just, if I may just read from this briefly. Amen. It it states that the disorderly conduct statute, quote, as worded, impermissibly sanctions a substantial amount protected speech even when considered in relation to its legitimate scope, end quote. And the the way that our committee understood this is that the the concepts and the language from this Supreme Court decision is essentially being put into statute which addresses the issue of the statute currently being considered overbroad and vague. And so we voted five zero zero to support this change. [Vice Chair]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the senate concur in the house proposal of amendment? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. And we have concurred in the House Proposal of Amendment on H. Fifty nine. Senator from Chitman. [Speaker 3 ]: Let me begin, mister president, by messaging our actions. I would move that the senate suspend its rules in order to message actions taken earlier on h fifty and act relating to identifying underutilized state buildings, h ninety one, and act relating to the Vermont homeless emergency assistance and responsive transition to housing program, and s fifty nine in act relating to amendments to Vermont's open meeting law to the house forthwith. [Vice Chair]: The senator from Chittenden has moved that the senate suspend its rules in order to action message its actions on h fifty, h ninety one, and s fifty nine to the house forthwith. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. Motion carries. Senator from Chittenden. [Speaker 3 ]: Thank you, Mr. President. As senators know, we were waiting for a message from the House on h four fifty four. We have received that. They have requested a conference committee, and I will turn it over to the Lieutenant Governor for for a report from Committee of Comp or the Committee of Committees. [Vice Chair]: H four fifty four, an act relating to transforming Vermont's education governance, quality, and finance system, has returned to us from the House and the House has refused to concur therein and asked for a committee on of conference upon the disagreeing votes of the two houses. Our committee of conference from the senate will be Senator Bongart, Senator Cummings, and Senator Beck. Senator from Chittenden. [Speaker 3 ]: Thank you, mister president. That completes the work that we're gonna be able to do today. I believe some committees may be meeting briefly after this, but in general, we will, pending further announcements. I would move that we adjourn until ten am Wednesday, May twenty eighth. [Vice Chair]: Are there any announcements? Seeing none. Oh, I see one. Senator from Windsor. [Speaker 2 ]: Thank you. Senate economic development, will meet at three forty five to continue to work, on our amendment. Thank you. [Vice Chair]: Senator from Essex. [Speaker 0 ]: Second, mister president. Sir, agricultural meet, briefly at nine fifteen tomorrow morning to discuss a couple of minutes. Thank you, mister president. [Vice Chair]: Are there further, senator Rutland? [Speaker 0 ]: Thank you, mister president. Senate government operations will not be. [Vice Chair]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the Senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the Senate stand in adjournment until eight, ten am. I'd like to start at eight. Tomorrow, May twenty eighth. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it and we'll stand in adjournment until ten a. M. Wednesday, May twenty eighth.
Select text if you'd like to play only a clip.

This transcript was computer-produced using some AI. Like closed-captioning, it won't be fully accurate. Always verify anything important by playing a clip.

Speaker IDs are still experimental