Bill seeks to modernize public meeting access

Some public bodies would be allowed to make greater use of technology in order to comply with the state’s Open Meetings Act under a bill heard by the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee Jan. 21.

Under LB84, introduced by Hyannis Sen. Al Davis, one member of a public body that represents territory in a county with a population of 3,000 or less—or a public body whose territory includes at least two counties with populations of less than 3,000—would be allowed to participate in a public meeting by teleconference, videoconference or other electronic means.

Davis said the bill would allow public entities to comply with open meetings law while dealing with travel conditions that often make it difficult for all members to attend a meeting in person.

“I do not envision this bill as an attempt to supplant open meeting laws,” Davis said, calling it a “baby step” toward ensuring that public bodies in rural areas are able to conduct their business.

Terri Licking, a member of the Thomas County Visitors Committee, testified in support of the bill. She said LB84 would help her committee and others like it to reach a quorum in order pay bills in a timely manner and keep members involved.

Rural counties have small pools of individuals to draw from who are willing to engage in public service, Licking said, which often involves driving long distances in inclement weather. In addition, she said, those who are willing to serve often are on many boards and committees and face time constraints that make it difficult to physically attend all meetings.

“We need everyone’s participation to conduct business efficiently,” Licking said.

Gavin Geis of Common Cause Nebraska also supported the bill, saying the state “falls more on the restrictive end” of the spectrum of how states approach allowing participation via technology.

Nebraska needs to explore using technology in ways that lessen the geographic burden on rural public bodies, he said.

“We think LB84 is a great first step to improve our system,” Geis said.

Walter Radcliffe, representing Media of Nebraska, opposed the bill. Current state law provides sufficient options for public bodies to use technology, he said, as long as reasonable advance notice is given and other conditions are met.

“I don’t believe [this bill] is needed because remote participation is adequately covered today in regard to Nebraska open meetings law,” Radcliffe said. “I would submit that LB84 is, quite frankly, a phone-in-your-vote bill.”

The committee took no immediate action on the bill.