Planning and Development Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: HB-5269
AN ACT CONCERNING REMOTE MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF
Title: INFORMATION ACT.
Vote Date: 3/18/2022
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/4/2022
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Rep. Maria P. Horn, 64th Dist.
Sen. Will Haskell, 26th Dist.
Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw, 17th Dist.
Rep. Christine Palm, 36th Dist.
Rep. David Michel, 146th Dist.
Rep. Brian T. Smith, 48th Dist.
Rep. Quentin Williams, 100th Dist.
Rep. Aimee Berger-Girvalo, 111th Dist.
Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, 133rd Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
HB 5269 permits public agencies to conduct remote meetings under the Freedom of
Information Act. According to section 149 of Public Act 21-2, April 30th 2022 is the sunset
date for any public agencies to hold remote access meetings. Since the outbreak of COVID-
19, remote access meetings have become a necessity to ensure that the public still had
access to participate in public proceedings. Since then, remote access meetings have
displayed numerous benefits for both public participants and agencies. This can include
easier accessibility, wider participation, and the removal of barriers whether they be caused
by other obligations or bad weather. This Bill would effectively extend the use of remote
access meetings for public agencies, thereby allowing them to continue to use this tool to
serve the citizens of Connecticut.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Colleen Murphy, Executive Director and General Counsel, Freedom of Information
Commission Ms. Murphy voiced support for HB 5269, as it extends the option for remote
access meetings past the sunset deadline of April 30th, 2022. The Commission also
expresses that remote access meetings have been met with enthusiasm by public agencies,
and that the Bill would both provide clarity and give the General Assembly more time to
decide on passing further provisions governing the conduct of remote meetings.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Brendan Sharkey & Lyle Wray, Chairperson & Vice Chair, Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations. Mr. Sharkey and Mr. Wray each submitted testimony in
support of Committee Bill No. 5269. They state, as shown by a previous study conducted by
the ACIR under Public Act 21-2, that the public strongly favors the option of remote meetings
at the local level. They further state the ACIR's recommendation that the sunset date for
authorization of remote and hybrid-remote meetings be extended by the General Assembly,
perhaps indefinitely. They also highlight another recommendation, namely that RPIP 2.0, a
re-purposing of the Regional Performance Incentive Grant, should be utilized to create
regional banks of meeting clerks. These hypothetical clerks should be trained in all types of
meeting technologies and other clerk functions, so as to be available to staff local meetings
when needed.
Michael Glidden, Vice President/Legislative Liaison, Connecticut Association of
Zoning Enforcements Officials. Mr. Glidden voiced support for HB 5269, as it allows the
option for both remote access and hybrid meetings to remain indefinitely. Mr. Glidden further
states that these platforms can reach a broader portion of the public, and allow citizens more
options when participating in meetings.
John Guszkowski & Emmeline Harrigan, Govt. Relations Committee co-chairs,
Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA) Mr. Guszkowski
and Ms. Harrigan voiced support for HB 5269, as it allows the option of virtual and hybrid
meetings to remain for the citizens of Connecticut, creating flexibility for participants and
increasing overall participation. They request however, that resources be made available to
help communities identify the best practice for hybrid meetings.
Brian O'Conner, Director of Public Policy, Connecticut Conference of Municipalities.
Mr. O'Conner voiced support for HB 5269, as it removes the previously established deadline
and allows municipalities to continue to work under the current framework of both remote
access and hybrid meetings. He further states that the CCM also recognizes the challenges
associated with mandating remote access or hybrid meetings.
Chris Parkin, Chairperson, Redding Board of Education Mr. Parkin voiced support for HB
5269, as it allows the agencies to continue to hold remote access meetings indefinitely. He
further expresses that while such remote meetings promote efficiency and increase both
participation and public engagement, they should include additional revisions such as:
- Requiring agencies to allow remote participation for its members.
- Speakers appearing by video having their full names displayed.
- Actions taken in an unrecorded or non-published meeting being void.
Page 2 of 4 HB-5269
Francis Pickering, Executive Director, Western Connecticut Council of Government
Mr. Pickering voiced support for HB 5269, as the benefits offered by the remote meeting
format are so compelling, that he and the Western CT Council of Government want the
remote option to continue.
Mike Savino, President, Connecticut Council on the Freedom of Information. Mr.
Savino voiced support for HB 5269, as it allows for easier accessibility to meetings of public
bodies and government officials. He further states that while the benefits are promising, local
officials should not use remote access to make themselves less accessible or engaging with
the public.
Donna Swarr, Commissioner, City of Hartford Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Ms. Swarr voiced support for HB 5269, as the Bill will allow remote access
meetings to continue indefinitely, which is to the public's benefit. Ms. Swarr further states that
such benefits include but are not limited to; accessibility to younger citizens, less
disturbances with lateness, easier accessibility to citizens with work or parental obligations,
and overcoming barriers due to bad weather.
The following speakers voiced support for HB 5269, as it allows public agencies to
continue to conduct remote meetings, a tool which allows for more flexibility. They
further state, however, that they wish remote meetings to remain an option only, and
not a mandate.
Connecticut Association of Boards of Education, Inc.
Betsy Gara, Executive Director, Connecticut Council of Small Towns
The following speakers voiced support for HB 5269, as it would allow the option of
remote access meetings to remain a possibility for citizens who have both difficulties
and constraints when trying to attend public meetings in person, thus increasing
participation.
Brenda Kupchick, First Selectwoman, Town of Fairfield
Kathy Flaherty, Executive Director, Connecticut Legal Rights Project.
Maureen Williams
Jess Zaccagnino, Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union of Connecticut
The following speakers voiced support for HB 5269, as it permits public agencies to
continue to conduct remote meetings. They further state that this tool was very helpful
during the Covid-19 pandemic and created a broader participation level from the
public.
Audrey Blondin, private citizen
John Filchak, Executive Director, Northeastern Connecticut Council of Governments.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
State Senator Rob Sampson, 16th Dist. Sen. Sampson voiced opposition to HB 5269, as
remote meetings have limited opportunities for citizens to engage elected officials directly in
debate and stifle their testimony with time constraints.
Page 3 of 4 HB-5269
Reported by: Ben McSheehy Date: March 24, 2022
Page 4 of 4 HB-5269