A bill that would permit county commissioners to participate remotely in a meeting and vote on matters by phone or other electronic means passed the House Local Government Committee on Tuesday despite several lawmakers on the committee raising concern and saying they would vote against it.

It was unclear in the voice vote exactly how lawmakers on the 21-member committee voted — to some people present, the “no’s” sounded louder than the “ayes.” But after pausing in silence for more than 10 seconds after the vote, Committee Chairman John Crawford who represents Bristol and Kingsport announced, “Bill moves on!”

The bill will next be heard in the House Finance, Ways and Means Committee, although it is not yet on next week’s calendar of that committee.

Many members walking out of the committee expressed puzzlement over the bill’s passage. During debate, several members said they had concerns about the bill and said they would be voting no. (You may watch the video and hear the vote here.)

Rep. Ron Gant said he was concerned that allowing county commissioners to participate remotely in county commission meetings would be a stepping stone to expansion in the future.

‘The nose of the camel is under the tent’

State Rep. Jay Reedy, R-Erin, said he would not expect to see the state legislature allowing members to vote remotely or participate in debate without being there physically, and county legislative bodies should be expected to be in person as well.

“There has been a lot of confusion especially during this shutdown from constituents who fuss at (the) county because they don’t have the transparency of seeing what’s going on,” Reedy said referring to one of his counties meeting electronically during the pandemic under the governor’s temporary executive order. “I’m of the opinion that audio doesn’t work all the time, video doesn’t work all the time for those folks to remotely access.”

While the bill allows county commissioners to vote and participate remotely only twice a year, “it’s the old adage, the nose of the camel is under the tent,’ ” Reedy said.

Ron Gant, R-Rossville and the majority assistant leader, asked if allowing members of county legislative bodies to participate and vote remotely would conflict with charters of some local counties. Matt Mundy, the legal counsel for the committee, said the bill would apply to all 95 counties.

“I see the intent,” Gant said. “The only thing that concerns me here is, is this a stepping stone to where we expand in the future and it becomes more of a concern? I just have grave concerns about this becoming more than what you are proposing.”

The bill is sponsored by state Rep. Dave Wright, R-Knoxville. In the Senate, it is being carried by Richard Briggs, also of Knoxville. Both lawmakers say the Knox County Commission asked them to bring the bill.

Wright told the House Local Government Committee that “we are in an era of changing technology” and urged the committee to vote for the bill to give county commissions “another tool in their wheelbarrow” for conducting meetings.

Rep. Dave Wright of Knoxville urged the committee to vote for the bill, saying it would give county commissioners another tool in their wheelbarrow for conducting meetings.

Bill makes no provisions for the public

The legislation would permit county commissioners to participate in a meeting remotely by electronic means, such as by telephone or videoconference. To participate remotely, a commissioner would have to be experiencing a family emergency or medical emergency as defined by the legislative body, be out of the county for work, or be called into military service. Each commissioner would be limited to participating remotely to twice a year.

Unlike during the pandemic, the meetings would not be fully remote, such as the entire governing body meeting on Zoom with a link made available to the public. A quorum of the commissioners would be required to be present at the physical location of the meeting, where the public also is allowed. However, there is no limit on how many members could participate by phone or videoconference at any given meeting. For some county commissions with 25 members, for example, only 13 would be needed for a physical quorum and the rest could be eligible for remote participation.

Rep. Harold Love Jr., D-Nashville, asked if members of the public at the physical meeting would be able to communicate with a commissioner who was not present physically but attending electronically. (The bill would apply to the 40-member Metro Council for Nashville and Davidson County.)

“So for example, if a member of the Metropolitan Council in Nashville is unable to be at the meeting and they are going to be participating electronically, does the public get notice that this member is going to be there electronically? To me, that’s what causes the difficulty because the general public may show up physically, then this member is there electronically and there may not be a means put in place at the physical location for members to interact with that person, whether it’s public comments period or otherwise.”

Wright replied said those issues — how the meeting would be conducted and any accommodation for the public — would be up to the local legislative body.

Hiding behind an electronic curtain

Sumner County Commissioner Jeremy Mansfield urged the committee to vote against the legislation, saying county commissioners needed to meet in person in front of their constituents.

Testimony against the bill came from Tennessee Coalition for Open Government, a Sumner County Commissioner and a resident in Nashville.

Jerry Mansfield, the Sumner County Commissioner, urged the committee not to pass the bill.

“Citizens expect their representatives to be present and in person when making decisions that affect their wallets or their pocketbooks. The potential abuse of hiding behind an electronic curtain is not doing what’s in the best interest of the hardworking taxpayers of the state of Tennessee,” he said.

Mansfield also said that he had seen governing bodies abuse the ability to meet electronically during the pandemic, as allowed by the governor, “to pass contentious issues at the county and city level without citizens being able to attend in person to petition their representatives…”

He said he and his colleagues were “vehemently opposed” to any exemption to law that removed the requirement of county commissioners to meet in person.

Richard Hoffman, a Nashville resident, also testified, saying he thought it was “flambasted” to allow local governing bodies to come up with their own rules on how they would conduct electronic meetings. He said there should be state standards.

TCOG says bill has problems

As executive director of TCOG, I also testified against the bill.

Here is an excerpt from my testimony:

When the pandemic happened, my organization, which tracks open meetings and public records, we favored electronic meetings because we didn’t want government to shut down.

This bill would extend electronic participation, voting by phone, to county legislative body members… However, this bill is different than the governor’s executive order that has allowed electronic meetings. The governor’s executive order had protections in there for the public so that they would be able to hear what was going on, they would get to know how people participating electronically voted. This bill does not have those protections.

We have concerns that the public would not be able to hear or understand. Particularly, this applies to county legislative bodies, some of which have 25 members. You could have a dozen people technically on the phone at any given time. That may be unlikely, but I don’t think it would be completely unlikely that you would have three or four people calling in and voting by phone and participating. That is hard for the public to follow…

You cannot opt out. A county legislative body cannot opt out of the requirements in this bill (if it became law). We are concerned with this bill, we think it needs improvement if it is to protect the public.”

Here is a written version of testimony by Jeremy Mansfield, the Sumner County commissioner.

As a Sumner County Commissioner, I am petitioning you to please vote NO on HB327, which creates an exception to the entirety of the Open Meetings Act for County Commissions.

We should not arbitrarily handle something as important as Open Meetings on a county by county basis. Would you do the same for Voter ID Requirements? Seat Belt Laws? Gun Laws?

When government trust is at an all-time low, government transparency should be at an all-time high. It should be uniform, and it should be standardized.

Citizens expect their representatives to be present and in person when making decisions that affect their wallets or pocketbooks.

The potential abuse of hiding behind an “Electronic Curtain” is not doing what’s in the best interest of the hardworking taxpayers of Tennessee.

We knew what we signed up for when we ran for this seat. There should never, under any circumstances, be exemptions from meeting in person as a County Commissioner (or any elected official for that matter). Suppose a Commissioner cannot fulfill his or her duties by meeting in person for an extended amount of time (sickness, military leave, etc.). In that case, they should not have special privileges. They knew what they signed up for. If they cannot fulfill the obligations and requirements of their PUBLIC seat, they should resign it.

There are times when Commissioners have to go out of town for work, etc., and that’s fine. They can miss a meeting, or they can try to change their work schedule. But we should NEVER seek to exempt meeting in person at any time, under any circumstance, including this “pandemic.”

I have seen local governments abuse the opportunity to meet in person through the current electronic meetings exemptions to pass contentious issues without citizens being able to attend in person to petition their representatives with an adequate redress of grievances.

As a sitting County Commissioner, I am vehemently opposed to any exemptions to the Open Meetings Act which would relieve County Commissioners (or any City, County, or State elected official) from the responsibility of meeting in person at all times.

I implore you. Please do not pass this bill. I thank you in advance for your NO vote on HB327.