Op-ed: Honor Sunshine Week by requiring hybrid government meetings
The Chester Telegraph | Mar 14, 2023 | Comments 0
The executive orders that prompted these changes, however, have long since expired. New England states have resorted to a patchwork of live streams, short-term remote meeting requirements, and in some cases, reverted back to pre-Covid policies and in-person meetings only.
There’s a better way forward.
Permanent changes need to be made to state laws to require both in-person and remote access to government meetings. People with young children, health issues, disabilities, work commitments or other circumstances that prevent in-person attendance at these meetings are at risk of again being shut out of the democratic process. At the same time, there are benefits to in-person meetings that must continue along with this expanded access.
Now is an ideal time to contact your state representatives and make this need known. Sunshine Week is March 12 through 18 and is a celebration of open government and freedom of information. The sunshine reference is attributed to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis who famously wrote that “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” In other words, an informed citizenry is the best check against government corruption. We should use the occasion to demand the permanent changes necessary for all members of the public to effectively engage with the government and stay informed.
The 2020 study — published in the Journal of Civic Information and authored by Jodie Gil and Jonathan L. Wharton — involved nearly 100 municipalities in Connecticut following the state’s Covid-19 emergency orders. It found that the majority of these municipalities experienced the same or increased participation during their public budget deliberations as they had previously. While these towns also experienced learning curves and other unexpected challenges, the authors’ findings reinforce what many of us have come to believe during the last three years: The public is more likely to participate in meetings when given multiple ways to do so.
Massachusetts lawmakers recently recognized this reality with legislation (HD3261/SD2017) that could serve as a model for other states. The bill would apply to all executive branch agencies and municipal bodies subject to the state’s Open Meeting Law. It phases in over seven years a requirement that they meet in person and also provide remote access and participation, but demands swift compliance by state agencies and elected municipal bodies. Non-elected municipal bodies with logistical or budgetary concerns can apply for hardship waivers. The legislation even creates a trust fund that will financially support those needing assistance. The waivers, however, are available only until 2030. There must be universal compliance by that time.
While each state has its own local considerations, there’s no reason why other open meeting laws cannot ultimately require hybrid access. (Don’t know what legislation is introduced in your state? Use the legislation trackers at nefac.org/FOIguide or go directly to the Vermont page here.) Remote meeting technology is becoming more prevalent, less expensive, and greatly needed by citizens unable to attend in person. At the very least, open meeting laws should be changed to incorporate the following:
Hybrid Access | The public needs in-person access to government meetings along with the ability to attend and participate remotely. Both forms of access are critical. While remote meetings will make government accessible to those who cannot otherwise attend, citizens still need face-to-face time with their representatives without their commentary being muted or disconnected from a Zoom line.
Justin Silverman is executive director of the New England First Amendment Coalition. A Massachusetts-based attorney, Justin helps lead NEFAC’s First Amendment and open government advocacy throughout the six-state region that includes Vermont.
Filed Under: Commentary • Op-ed
About the Author: