Ohio Senate committee to hear House-passed virtual meetings measure this week

The Ohio Senate continues to consider whether to adopt a measure advanced nearly unanimously by the Ohio House that would authorize many public bodies to conduct meetings virtually.

If passed in its current form and signed into law, H.B. 257 would authorize public bodies otherwise covered by the Open Meetings Act, with certain notable exceptions, to meet virtually or have some of its members attend and vote virtually, as long as precautions are made that ensure openness and accountability. Among the entities excepted from taking advantage of the virtual-meetings law would be the General Assembly and its committees and subcommittees; city and village councils; chartered county councils and boards of county commissioners; township boards of trustees; and city, local and exempted village boards of education.

If the Senate, whose Government Oversight Committee plans to take up the measure Wednesday, concurs with the House-passed version, the law would impose notice and other requirements on those wishing to conduct virtual meetings. First, a public body would be obligated to adopt a policy that (a) requires notification to the public at least 72 hours in advance of any virtual meeting; (b) covers how emergency meetings are announced; (c) defines what an emergency is; and (d) requires that the public be allowed to access the meeting in the same way the meeting is being conducted – for example, by livestreaming the meeting – and to observe and hear all public discussions and deliberations. During a virtual meeting, members of public bodies would not be permitted to go off-screen at any time, and all votes would generally have to be taken by roll call. Technology must be such that witnesses and the public are able to converse and share images with members of the public body.

Additionally, at least two members of any public body with fewer than 21 members could demand that an agenda item be acted on in person only. The bill further provides that no “major nonroutine expenditure or significant hiring decision” or vote to support a tax issue or tax increase may occur in a virtual meeting. (“Major nonroutine expenditure” and “significant hiring decision” must be terms defined in the virtual-meeting policy the public body would adopt.)

Finally, any “hearing” – “an administrative hearing, hearing as defined in section 119.01 of the Revised Code, or other hearing at which a person may present written or oral testimony on a matter before the public body” – would come with additional guardrails. Persons who are the target or subject of a hearing (for example, applicants for government approvals or licenses) could demand that the hearing be held in person, and any one public body member could require that a hearing be held in person.

We’ve written in previous editions of the Monday Message that chartered municipalities are permitted to deviate from the Open Meetings Act if their charters do not require compliance with the act. Thus, these additional H.B. 257 provisions on virtual meetings – including restrictions against city and home-rule village councils meeting electronically – would not apply to those chartered entities wishing to continue their existing protocols on virtual meetings. As for this bill, we’ll continue to monitor it through the current lame-duck session of the General Assembly and we’ll report on its outcome afterward.