There’s never any shortage of stealth Statehouse meetings in the closing days of the legislative session.
House and Senate negotiators seek out empty rooms in which to settle their differences. Legislative leaders hole up in the governor’s ceremonial office to hammer out the budget. But rarely does an entire committee conduct its business behind closed doors.
On Thursday, one did.
As a renewable energy bill neared a final vote in the Senate, all five members of the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy gathered in Senate President Pro Tem John Campbell’s (D-Windsor) Statehouse office. They were there to debate a controversial amendment Campbell drafted that would give municipalities greater power to restrict the siting of renewable energy projects.
When a Seven Days reporter attempted to cover the meeting, he was turned away.
“Please, this is not a public meeting,” Campbell said.
Asked if a quorum of the panel was present, Campbell said, “It’s not a public meeting. No. It’s not. Please.”
“It’s not a quorum of the committee?” Seven Days enquired.
“I’m asking you to close the door,” Campbell said. “This is not a public meeting.”
Several minutes later, WCAX-TV’s Kyle Midura opened the door to the pro tem’s office and asked whether the entire committee was present.
“Would you? Please. We’re going to have Legislative Council come down in a second,” Campbell said, referring to the legislature’s attorneys. “Kyle, this is a—”
Shortly thereafter, Sen. Diane Snelling (R-Chittenden) exited the room, saying, “I’m uncomfortable doing this, especially given your interest.”
After the meeting concluded and senators filed through the doorway, Seven Days asked how the meeting went.
“Good,” Sen. Brian Campion (D-Bennington) said. “We’re going back to committee now.”
Seven Days pointed out that he and his colleagues were just in committee, behind closed doors.
“You go talk to [Legislative] Council,” Sen. John Rodgers (D-Essex/Orleans) said. “It’s a private office. Do you guys barge into [House Speaker Shap Smith’s] office?”
“This is a private office. You know, this is a private office. This is not a committee room,” Campbell said. “Paul, you know, would you — if you quit your ‘microphone in the face’ type of journalism, which I’d question whether you’re a real journalist. I’m telling you: This is a private office for deliberative processes.”
Campbell and his assistant, Erika Wolffing, then slammed the door.
Whether legislative committees are permitted to meet in secret has been a matter of some dispute. According to the Senate’s own rules, a committee can go into executive session by a vote of two-thirds of its members only to discuss gubernatorial appointments, legal matters and those that constitute “a clear and imminent peril to the public safety.”
But when Seven Days attempted to cover a meeting of the Committee on Committees in February 2014, Campbell argued that the rule didn’t apply, because that committee “is totally different” from other committees.
“It’s kind of a misnomer using that name, ‘committee,'” Campbell said of the committee.
For his part, Secretary of State Jim Condos looks to the state’s open meeting law, which requires public bodies to properly warn their meetings and permit the public to attend. Though legislators often say they are exempt from the law’s mandates, Condos doesn’t think that’s the case.
“My belief is that the legislature has to follow the open meeting law,” he said.
And then there’s the Vermont Constitution, which says: “The doors of the House in which the General Assembly of this Commonwealth shall sit, shall be open for the admission of all persons who behave decently, except only when the welfare of the State may require them to be shut.”
The constitution does not indicate whether the use of microphones or cameras constitutes indecent behavior.
Later Thursday afternoon, Campbell’s staff passed out copies of a memo drafted by Legislative Council deputy director Michael O’Grady, arguing that the public can, in fact, be excluded. The legislature “is not subject to the requirements of the Open Meeting Law,” he wrote, and the Senate is free to waive its own rules.
As for that pesky constitution?
O’Grady wrote that while the Statehouse doors must generally remain open, he noted that “the welfare of the State may require them to be shut.”
“Under this exception, a quorum of a standing committee may lawfully meet to discuss a bill, without prior notice of the meeting and without opening the meeting to the public,” he wrote.
O’Grady did not explain how the welfare of the state was dependent upon the Senate committee debating Campbell’s amendment in secret.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
If the committee was lawfully meeting to discuss a bill in order to protect the welfare of the State, why weren’t they doing it in their committee room?
This legislature is absolutely out of control. Former Speaker Walt Freed and at least one House committee chair at the time attempted similar antics and got slapped down by the Press and the interested public. It is high time the Vermont public took back the people’s house and our government.
vtdigger’s article said Sen. Sears was also in the room. This is about H.40, the energy bill. Trying to rush it through, it is not ready. This is what happens when political pressure is applied to legislators who need more time to do the right thing. The administration drafted a bill with the utilities and renewable energy industry and completely ignored the interests of the people of Vermont who live here.
None of those senators wanted to be on record arguing against the amendment… after all, why would you not want to give towns & cities control over their own destinies (vis-a-vis the location of renewable energy sites)? It’s sensible to try to conduct such a steamroll job in private! If you were arguing that the energy industry should have control over deciding where it wants to put renewable energy production, you’d not want reporters around, either. The meeting was “to protect the welfare” of the energy industry, its lobbyists, and their campaign donations.
Sorry Senator Campbell, but Secretary of State Condos is right.
Title 01 : General Provisions
Chapter 005 : Common Law; General Rights
Subchapter 002 : Public Information
§ 312. Right to attend meetings of public agencies
(a)(1) All meetings of a public body are declared to be open to the public at all times, except as provided in section 313 (going into Executive Session) of this title.
A legislative committee, gathered in their committee room, or in your office is subject to the open meeting law. Period. There are no exemptions for the legislature…and stating so only highlights your ignorance, or worse yet, your lack of ethics.
I realize this is tangential to the discussion, but I was bothered by the photo of the page that accompanied this article. He appears visibly uncomfortable, and to have his photo be the most prominent visual representation of a controversial action over which he has no control seems unnecessary. In my mind, sticking with just the photo of the closed door would have been not only preferable, but also a stronger statement about the problem.
How many of these happened before they voted to take away our choice of using a known faulty and proven unsafe to many medical product which is sold by companies paying out billions in lawsuits for injuries? Since when is forced vaccination part of our “liberties” as tax payers, home and business owners, workers, and parents??? Since Tuesday!!! Shumlin needs to listen to the voice of Vermonters not wanting imposed medical procedures!!!
Wasn’t the bill education bill also hammered out, at least in part, behind closed doors?
If the logic of Senate President Pro Tempore Campbell and others along these lines were to be allowed to hold true (as if), rather than remain an uncontested myth, then the state Senate is no longer truly a legislative body representative of the public, but merely a cabal doing exactly whatever it wants, however as well as whenever it wants to do it. Sadly, this has been occurring here and there for a while now (in the House at times as well, several years ago), only up to more recent years the cabal has tended to do this mostly in the shadows, not necessarily during the light of day. It might take a lawsuit by the press as well as allies like the ACLU and others in order to properly challenge this type of poor behavior by the legislature and also could be time for voters across the state to clean house er, senate.
Morgan W. Brown
Montpelier
The legislative page in the picture is me. I was so surprised when I walked out the room to see three photographers taking pictures of me.
When legislators start considering themselves above the law & beyond the peoples reach, it’s time for them to be removed from service.
John Campbell – Shumlin’s Latest “Straw Man” !
Well John Campbell can kiss his shot at the Governor’s Office goodbye! With all the controversy and cash swirling around the “Green Energy” scams in Vermont – the last thing that the citizenry, Green Energy advocates, commercial interests, regulators or legislators need is secrecy and closed meetings. “Transparency ? – We don’t need no stinking transparency !”
Graft, corruption, quid pro quo dealings and the ever popular “payola” are the only “legitimate” reasons to hide the truth from the public and the press.
Hooray for Paul Heintz and his tenacity in shining the sanitizing “light-of-day” on this shameful behavior. I have been critical of Paul from time to time for his edging up to the civility borderline – I am finding it very difficult to continue to do so.
Good work Paul, actually Great Reporting !
Wait!, Wait! – This does make sense, Campbell must have a secret deal with Shumlin to act as his “straw man” to deflect attention and criticism from the Gov.
Congratulations John – Mission Accomplished !
H. Brooke Paige
Washington, Vermont