House Bill No. 7676 BY Speakman, Tanzi, Ajello, Shallcross Smith, Cortvriend, Carson, Spears, Cotter ENTITLED, AN ACT RELATING TO STATE AFFAIRS AND GOVERNMENT -- OPEN MEETINGS (Allows advisory bodies to participate in a public meeting using videoconferencing, subject to certain requirements.) {LC4865/1} » http://webserver.rilegislature.gov/BillText/BillText26/HouseText26/H7676.pdf
Speaker, this bill has a good transparency goal, but it creates
one more time another unfunded mandate for our towns. Now, those of you in the larger
municipalities, I'm sure are used to seeing a lot of gear around and a lot of video conferencing and
taping and live streaming, but those of us in small towns don't have the staff, the money,
or the equipment. It certainly proved effective during the pandemic. There's no question about
that. But there's a whole host of problems with this. There's no funding source. That's the
biggest problem. The state is once again ordering local governments what to do, not funding it,
and then holding them to a 4% cap on their levy. We don't have that same limit on ourselves.
It absolutely hits the small towns the hardest, and it also creates a legal issue for smaller
local boards. We already see suits constantly being filed on OMA grounds because perhaps
the minutes weren't in on the right time, and some upset former board member wants to file
complaints with the AG. This happens all the time. If a meeting stops, if the equipment fails,
it forces adjournment. We might be about to extend our police officer's contract later in the agenda,
and the thing goes down and we have to adjourn. There's all sorts of real problems with that
alone. It creates a new administrative burden for every single agenda. Now this has to be,
once again, incorporated in everyday work. Town halls with hundreds of employees are one thing.
Town halls with six are an entirely different thing. It will absolutely chill local participation.
I'm going to tell you why. It may seem the opposite, but it isn't always. Can it increase
participation? Absolutely. There are people who do not want to be on video making public statements.
It happened a lot during the pandemic in my towns. I'm sure it happened in all of our towns,
maybe not as loudly. The advisory boards, I mean, we have so many advisory boards.
Now we have to get into remote on that. People like to see their officials, the decision makers.
They want to see them face to face when they go to meetings. They don't want to have a screen in
the corner with somebody maybe not looking at it or a blank screen with their name on it.
They want to confront and ask the questions of the people that are running their towns.
Public records confusion. There could be things said in these meetings. There could be things
on those tapes that aren't necessarily able to be released through an APRA requiring more
legal work, more work. There is a drafting defect that's minor, and I'm sure someone
will catch it downstairs. Again, we are expanding state control over local meeting procedures,
and we're not doing it with the generosity of even throwing them a couple of shekels.
That is killing our towns. We are seeing it in real time. Every one of us are seeing it,
and we will continue to see it every year. We thrust more onto their plates and no money to
go with it, but you better not exceed that four percent. Meanwhile, up here, we don't have to
exceed. We can go wherever we want. Forty-four percent, no problem. We can do it, and we can
make more mandates. We're killing our towns. The smaller ones will die first,
but they will all eventually die if we do not change our approach to unfunded mandates. We
all hear it when we go in our towns. I know we do. We have to stop this model. It's not working.
