Government Administration and Elections Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: SB-183
AN ACT CONCERNING REMOTE MEETINGS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF
Title: INFORMATION ACT.
Vote Date: 3/29/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/17/2021
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:
The Government Administration and Elections Committee
REASONS FOR BILL:
This bill is intended to allow public agencies in the State of Connecticut to conduct electronic
meetings in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
Freedom of Information Commission: Citing the circumstance of the COVID-19 pandemic,
the Freedom of Information Commission highlighted the importance of remote meetings
during times when an in-person gathering might not be possible. In doing so, the business of
the government was able to continue. This bill seeks to amend the FOI Act to allow for public
agencies to hold meetings remotely as well as in person, granted that these agencies make
their meetings accessible to the public. The FOI Commission seeks clarification on
ambiguous language, including the use of the phrase within a reasonable period of time as
seen in line 10, any materials relevant in line 14, and to the extent feasible in line 20.
Seeing that these are not clear and open to interpretation, the Commission believes that it is
imperative for the committee to narrowly tailor these terms to a specific definition.
Additionally, the Commission asked for clarification of the language in lines 8 and 38 through
43, which could be interpreted to assume that the bill mandates municipalities to have
websites. Lastly, the Commission made clear that likes 23-24, requiring that any participant
identify themselves will inevitably result in noncompliance and a flood of complaints with the
Commission. The Commission recommends that it would be better practice to allow for public
agencies to make their own rules governing speaking at remote public hearings.
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch: The written testimony submitted by the Judicial
Branch suggested that the effective date for Section 1 of the bill be extended to January 1st,
2022. The Judicial Branch believes that transcription and recording of all remotely held
judicial meetings will require updates to technology and training for staff, and therefore, they
request a later effective date so that they have time to implement any new protocol.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Connecticut Chapter of the American Planning Association (CCAPA): CCAPAs written
testimony offered strong support for the bill. CCAPA acknowledges that personal interaction
among is certainly missed, but ultimately contends that remote meetings have increased
participation, improved upon acoustics and expanded access to the public hearing itself as
well as the meeting material. By maintaining a hybrid or remote option, CCAPA believes that
this option will be beneficial during the winter months and traditional vacation times.
Connecticut Association of Zoning Enforcement Officials (CAZEO): CAZEO supports SB
183 on the grounds that it will improve access to all interested persons by allowing them to
listen from their phones while they are commuting, and from their computers while completing
tasks at their house. Increasing access would allow for virtual meetings to take place even
during adverse weather conditions that might pose a barrier to those wishing to attend.
Additionally, CAZEO contends that allowing for remote meetings would improve
transparency, since the bill mandates that certain material up for discussion during a virtual
meeting must be published online at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting. Lastly,
CAZEO believes that virtual meetings help to save money for municipalities and would be
more cost effective in terms of making use of all the unexpected technology expenditures that
came as a result of the pandemic.
Kathleen Flaherty, Esq., Executive Director, Connecticut Legal Rights Project: The
Connecticut Legal Rights Project supports the bill because remote meetings have been a
safer alternative during the pandemic. In addition, CLRP finds that allowing for remote
meetings increases accessibility to people who might not be able to travel to a municipal
building but still want to participate in government.
Pua Ford, Open Government Specialist, League of Women Voters of Connecticut: The
League of Women Voters of Connecticut supports this bill with a few minor adjustments. One
reason behind that the LWV-CT supports this bill is because of the usefulness of remote
meetings during the event of inclement weather. Citing experiences from previous years,
people wishing to testify or attend a public meeting have had to drive into Hartford during icy
conditions. Additionally, in-person meetings have prevented people from taking part in
government because of child care, elder care or lack of access to a car. By allowing for
remote meetings, people have greater access and it provides a great opportunity for civic
education. The League suggested that the bill eliminate the time requirement for an agency
to post a recording or transcript no later than seven days. In addition, the League requested
that the bill eliminate the requirement for those participating in the virtual meeting to
announce their name and title, unless they are not visible.
Betsy Gara, Executive Director, Connecticut Council of Small Towns (COST): COST
supports this bill as a means to allow for municipalities to continue to hold important meetings
to conduct the business of government in a timely manner. COST is mindful of the fact that
Page 2 of 4 SB-183
smaller municipalities might struggle in terms of staffing, timing and costs associated with
storing and transcribing records. Additionally, COST acknowledges the concerns over the
lack of adequate staff and equipment to accommodate the sheer number of municipal
committees, subcommittees and working groups that might hold meetings electronically.
Steve Jones: As a member of the Tolland Town Council, Mr. Jones states that remote
meetings have nearly doubled the normal attendance rates seen with in-person meetings. In
his testimony, Mr. Jones agreed with the FOI Commissions comments regarding the need to
strengthen various terms in order to prevent confusion or misinterpretation of the bills
provisions.
Kelly McConney Moore, Interim Senior Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
of Connecticut (ACLU-CT): The ACLU-CT views SB 183 as a critical step towards complete
government transparency, especially during times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic.
By explicitly allowing for virtual meetings to be permitted under the Freedom of Information
Act, the bill seeks to ensure that there is readily available access to government and the
business being conducted.
Redding Board of Education: The Redding Board of Education supports this bill as a
means to promote government efficiency, reduce barriers on faithful compliance with the law,
and encourages greater participation in the affairs of government. If permitted to meet
electronically, local boards and commissions would be able to meet more frequently and
reduce any administrative delays that could come as a result of trying to ensure that
everyone is available to meet in person at a certain time and place. Additionally, by allowing
for electronic meetings, more qualified individuals might step forward to work in government.
Since many boards and commissions are volunteer based, many individuals struggle to find
the time to make a commitment to these groups. Allowing for electronic meetings expands
accessibility and opportunity. Lastly, the bill would rectify issues with agencies conducting
meetings through improper electronic means that are not accessible to the public, such as
email. By outlining the protocol for remote meetings, the bill would reduce any hardships or
burdens on members seeking to conduct electronic meetings.
Mike Savino, President, Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information (CCFOI):
CCFOI supports SB 183 but urges the General Assembly to offer clarifying language over
what is and what is not permitted during virtual public meetings. In addition, CCFOI
addressed concerns over public officials who have turned off their cameras during remote
meetings. CCFOI believes that the bill should mandate that public officials leave their
cameras on.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE): The Connecticut Association of
Boards of Education believes that expanding the requirements for conducting virtual
meetings under current law would inhibit the ability of public agencies to conduct businesses.
CABE believes that the requirement to create and retain audio and/or video recording as well
as a transcript of the meeting would exceed the capacity of small public agencies like boards
of education. CABE urged the committee to create a local option for virtual mandates, since
local public agencies have varying access to resources.
Page 3 of 4 SB-183
Reported by: Trevor Hoffman Date: 03/29/2021
Page 4 of 4 SB-183


Statutes affected:
Committee Bill: 1-225, 1-226, 1-228, 1-200
GAE Joint Favorable Substitute: 1-225, 1-226, 1-228, 1-200
File No. 441: 1-225, 1-226, 1-228, 1-200