Senate panel rejects public meetings bill
An Arkansas Senate committee on Tuesday balked at a bill that would define a public meeting under the state’s Freedom of Information Act as the convening of two or more members of a governing body of a public entity for which a quorum is required to make a decision, discuss public business or deliberate a decision on any matter.
A meeting would not include the on-site inspection of a project or program or a chance interaction of two or more members of a governing body of a public entity under Senate Bill 382 by Sen. Alan Clark, R-Lonsdale.
The Senate State Agencies and Governmental Affairs committee also declined to advance Senate Bill 380 by Clark that would require custodians of records to respond in writing within three working days to a written request for public records under certain circumstances.
But the committee endorsed Senate Bill 381 by Clark, which would require members of the governing body of each city, county and school board to attend an annual training session of at least one hourabout certain areas related to the Freedom of Information Act.
Several citizens and representatives of press groups testified in favor of all three bills, while an attorney for the Arkansas Municipal League testified against SB380.
Attorney Joey McCutchen of Fort Smith, who joined Clark in making pitches for all three bills, told the Senate committee that “we have two choices here.”
“We have Senate Bill 382, which says two people cannot meet and discuss what is happening in the boys bathroom, and the decisions that are going to be made for the multi-million dollar economic development project or the bathroom bill in Conway, Arkansas, on the local level,” he said.
“Those discussions, and those deliberations and those decisions have to be before us, the people,” McCutchen said. “This is the people’s law. … We are entitled to see the sausage making.”
He said the other choice is House Bill 1610 by Rep. Mary Bentley, R-Perryville, which would define a public meeting as a meeting of a “quorum” of a governing body of local government entities and state government entities supported wholly or in part by public funds or expending public funds, except as otherwise specifically provided by law.
McCutchen said less than a half of the members of a governing body could meet at the back of a fast food restaurant, a secret text chain or a secret mail chain and discuss, deliberate and decide “our business,” and then a few of those members of the governing body could meet with less than half of a governing body to make “that secret decision and then it’s a done deal,” under HB1610.
Bentley said Monday that the ambiguous definition of public meetings in the Arkansas law has hampered quorum courts, city councils and school boards in her House District 54, and members of those boards should be able to talk in small groups among themselves, as legislators can do, before holding public meetings to discuss and vote on issues before the public.
Senate Bill 382 died in the Senate committee on Tuesday because none of the committee members made a motion to approve the bill.
Afterward, committee Chairman Sen. Blake Johnson, R-Corning, said he worried the bill would limit discussions between two elected officials without making a decision. He said he also was concerned the bill would cover some private entities.
Under SB382, except as otherwise specifically provided by law, all meetings, formal or informal, special or regular, of two or more members of the governing body of certain entities are public meetings. These entities include all municipalities, counties, townships, school districts and other political subdivisions; all boards, bureaus, commissions, organizations and other public entities of the state of Arkansas except grand juries; all other public entities supported wholly or in part by public funds or expending public funds; and all private entities that are supported wholly or in part by public funds or expending public funds and engaged in activities or provision of services that would normally be provided by governmental entities or would be provided by governmental entities in the absence of the private entity.
Under SB380, a custodian of public records would be required to respond in writing within three working days to a written request for public records under certain circumstances.
If no records exist that are responsive to the request, the custodian would be required to respond within this period that no records exist under the bill. If any responsive records that exist are subject to exemptions under the law, the custodian would be required to respond within this period and identify the applicable exemptions under the bill. If the custodian lacks administrative control over any responsive records that may exist, the custodian would be required to respond within this period and identify the appropriate custodian to direct the request to, if known or readily ascertainable.
McCutchen told the Senate committee that the “bottom line is I think this is friendly to the people as FOIA was designed to be.
“It seems to me it prevents lawsuits,” he said. “It is fair to both the citizens and the governing body.”
Senate Bill 380 died in committee Tuesday because none of the other committee members seconded a motion by Sen. Bryan King, R-Green Forest, to recommend Senate approval of the bill.
Under SB381, members of the governing body of each city, county and school board would be required to attend an annual training session of at least an hour covering certain areas of the Freedom of Information Act.
The annual training session would consist of in-person training or live training by video conference provided by a person knowledgeable about the Freedom of Information Act, be open to the public and cover newly enacted legislation, new precedent from the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, and the requirements for public meetings, public records and the rules and practices governing a custodian’s response to requests for public records.
In a voice vote, the Senate committee recommended Senate approval of SB381.
Johnson said he received Freedom of Information Act training through the Municipal League as a Corning City Council member, and one would have to be hiding under a rock not to know about the Freedom of Information Act.