Update: Remote Participation in Board Meetings Not OK’d

Training for: Legal Notes

The Legislature again this year had an opportunity to authorize members of all public bodies, including municipal boards, to participate in meetings remotely by telephone or video conferencing. And again, lawmakers declined to do so. (Maine is in a distinct minority on this.)

Two years ago the Legislature similarly failed to act, leading to the clear inference that remote participation in public meetings is not currently allowed under Maine’s “Right to Know” law (see “Is Remote Participation in Board Meetings OK?,” Maine Townsman, Legal Notes, June 2014). This year’s inaction only reinforces that conclusion.

LD 1586 as drafted would have authorized appointed boards to use remote participation but would have barred elected boards from doing so. MMA opposed this nonsensical distinction and urged the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee to permit both elected and appointed boards to use remote participation, with appropriate safeguards to protect the public’s right to know. But committee members were unable to agree among themselves, so they killed the bill instead. At virtually the same time, however, the committee approved, and the full Legislature later passed, legislation authorizing four special State boards to use remote participation (see LD 1241).

We’re not entirely sure what all this means, but we’re as confident as ever about one thing: There is still no clear legal authority for members of local boards, elected or appointed, to participate in meetings remotely by any means.

For details on the “open meeting” requirements of Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, see MMA’s “Information Packet” on Right to Know, available free to members at www.memun.org. (By R.P.F.)

The Legislature again this year had an opportunity to authorize members of all public bodies, including municipal boards, to participate in meetings remotely by telephone or video conferencing. And again, lawmakers declined to do so. (Maine is in a distinct minority on this.)

Two years ago the Legislature similarly failed to act, leading to the clear inference that remote participation in public meetings is not currently allowed under Maine’s “Right to Know” law (see “Is Remote Participation in Board Meetings OK?,” Maine Townsman, Legal Notes, June 2014). This year’s inaction only reinforces that conclusion.

LD 1586 as drafted would have authorized appointed boards to use remote participation but would have barred elected boards from doing so. MMA opposed this nonsensical distinction and urged the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee to permit both elected and appointed boards to use remote participation, with appropriate safeguards to protect the public’s right to know. But committee members were unable to agree among themselves, so they killed the bill instead. At virtually the same time, however, the committee approved, and the full Legislature later passed, legislation authorizing four special State boards to use remote participation (see LD 1241).

We’re not entirely sure what all this means, but we’re as confident as ever about one thing: There is still no clear legal authority for members of local boards, elected or appointed, to participate in meetings remotely by any means.

For details on the “open meeting” requirements of Maine’s Freedom of Access Act, see MMA’s “Information Packet” on Right to Know, available free to members at www.memun.org. (By R.P.F.)