An act relating to the disruption of proceedings governed by Vermont’s Open Meeting Law
H.145 would amend Vermont’s Open Meeting Law and disorderly conduct statute to give public bodies clearer authority to manage disruptive behavior at public meetings. It expressly allows chairs to adopt reasonable rules for public comment and participation, including rules that prohibit disruption, and it authorizes a public body to require a person to leave a meeting if they violate those rules. If a person is removed, the bill would allow the body to bar that person from attending in-person meetings for up to 60 days, so long as the meetings are also available in hybrid or electronic form and the person can still participate remotely.
The bill also adds a new basis for disorderly conduct: substantially impairing the effective conduct of a public body’s meeting. The legislative intent section emphasizes balancing free speech and the right to assemble with the need for government meetings to proceed efficiently, while also recognizing that public bodies should not use arbitrary rules to silence merely unpopular or adverse viewpoints. The bill would take effect July 1, 2025.
The bill would amend 1 V.S.A. § 312, Vermont’s Open Meeting Law, by codifying a public body’s authority to set and enforce reasonable rules for public comment and meeting conduct, including removal of disruptive attendees and temporary in-person attendance bans. It would also amend 13 V.S.A. § 1026, the disorderly conduct statute, to make substantial impairment of a public meeting’s effective conduct an express disorderly conduct offense. These changes would affect chairs of public bodies, municipal and state boards, and members of the public attending open meetings, while preserving remote participation options where available.
The bill’s stated purpose reflects a generally balanced approach: it supports public access, speech, and assembly rights while also prioritizing orderly and effective government proceedings. The text suggests support for stronger tools to address genuine disruption, but also caution against overreach by public bodies that might use order rules to suppress dissent. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or vote-based sentiment to assess beyond the bill’s own framing.
The main point of contention is the line between protected public comment and disruptive conduct. Supporters of the bill would likely favor clearer authority for chairs and public bodies to stop interruptions, remove disruptive individuals, and prevent repeated interference with meetings. Potential opponents or civil-liberties advocates may be concerned that the rules could be used too broadly, especially the new disorderly conduct language and the ability to exclude someone from in-person meetings for up to 60 days. The bill attempts to address that concern by requiring the conduct rules to be reasonable and by preserving electronic participation when in-person attendance is restricted.