ACLU applauds, urges public meeting streaming

 Although remote access to public meetings – via livestreaming services such as “Zoom” or other platforms – is not mandatory in the state, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Rhode Island is urging communities to make meetings as accessible as possible.

The organization’s recommendation is based on a recent report that examines meeting access to municipal town councils and school committees.  The data updates a similar report that the ACLU issued almost two years ago, and while it states that there have been some improvements in remote access to meetings, it concludes that there is room for improvement.

Citing its own prior report, the organization states, “Access to the democratic process should no longer hinge on a person’s physical mobility or their ability to afford a car, get time off work, or find a childcare provider.”

According to the report which can be read on the Rhode Island ACLU website, a majority of the 39 municipal town councils in the state make livestreaming options available to the public, as do the majority of school committees.

In the Warwick, Cranston and Johnston area, both Warwick and Cranston offer remote access to meetings.  Johnston, however, was singled out in the report for not providing streaming access to School Committee meetings.  And although it was not highlighted in the ACLU report, the town also does not offer remote access to Town Council meetings.

Robert Russo, president of the Town Council, said that while remote access is not currently offered, being accessible is important to the council.  All meeting agendas and minutes are posted online, he said, and he has not heard of any concerns or received requests for remote meeting access for the public. “We don’t have the equipment for that (remote access) …and as far as I am aware, we have not had any requests,” he said last week.  “But if someone did approach us with concerns, I’m sure we’d try to see if there was something we could do.’

Joseph Rotella, Chair of the Johnston School Committee, expressed similar sentiments.  “We follow what the Town Council does,” he said, noting that the school board recently hired a stenographer to improve public access to the details of past meetings.

Rotella, who became chairman in January, said the board does not currently have the equipment to live stream its meetings, but he would want to hear from residents who might trouble accessing current in-person sessions.  “We don’t have the equipment or the staff,” he said.  “I do want to point out that I think that we should use every extra dollar we have for the students.”

Until the Covid pandemic, state law; required public bodies to meet in person in sessions open to the public (with specific exemptions for closed “executive sessions”).  That requirement was lifted a couple changed during the height of the health crisis when then-Governor Gina Raimondo suspended the in-person meeting requirement and cities and towns sought ways to conduct remote sessions.

However, two years ago, in February 2022, Governor McKee signed an executive order allowing public boards and committees to resume in-person session.  He left them the option to continue remote options if they desired, but the remote access is not mandatory.

At the time, Common Cause Rhode Island said it opposed any move that would no longer require remote meeting access. According to an article in the Providence Journal, John Marion Jr., executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island, said that stopping remote meeting access was a “step backward for government transparency.”

According to the ACLU press release accompanying the report, 33 of the state’s 39 cities and towns have livestreaming options for their council meetings.  Of the 34 school committees in the state, 30 offer livestreaming, the ACLU states.

In the report, Zoe Chakoian, a communications for the ACLU, said, “Every step towards a more transparent process is a good thing – for each person that can be more involved and informed about what’s happening in the community, and for the overall government transparency in our state.”