03-08-21 Regular Meeting of the La Porte CIty Council

Browse Search

Some cities’ rules regarding its own property will likely be tested in practice, which makes consultation with your city attorney imperative. Remember that a mayor can ask questions of the attorney general related to the pandemic orders. What is the status of the suspended Open Meetings Act provisions? The letter from the governor’s office provides that the Open Meetings Act suspensions are “in effect until terminated by the office of the governor, or until the March 13, 2020, disaster declaration is lifted or expires.” The governor’s staff assured the League that he intends to continue successively extending his 30-day COVID-19 disaster declaration because it is needed to ensure eligibility for federal assistance, among other things. That means the coinciding Open Meetings Act suspensions should continue for the foreseeable future. (Even if he decides to independently end the suspensions, his staff assures the League that he will give ample notice of that action.) On February 4, the governor’s office last extended the disaster declaration (and the Open Meetings Act suspensions) for another 30 days. That declaration expires March 5. But there’s no need to worry because we are confident he will renew it by then. If you’d like to confirm, look to the “Proclamation” page of www.gov.texas.gov. (Click “News” at the top of the page, and then “Proclamation” on the right side of that page.) While they don’t replicate the suspensions exactly, several bills have been filed thus far relating to videoconference and teleconferencing. For example: S.B. 639 (Menéndez) – Open Meetings: would: (1) provide that, without regard to whether a member of the governmental body is participating in a meeting from a remote location by telephone conference call, a governmental body may allow a member of the public to speak at a meeting from a remote location by telephone conference call; (2) provide that, when a member of a governmental body loses audio or video during a videoconference meeting, the meeting may continue when a quorum of the body remain audible and visible to each other and, during the open portion of the meeting, to the public; (3) allow a meeting by videoconference so long as the presiding officer is present at a physical location open to the public where members of the public may observe and participate in the meeting; (4) set out the notice requirements for a videoconference meeting; and (5) provide that, without regard to whether a member of the governmental body is participating in a meeting from a remote location by videoconference call, a governmental body may allow a person to speak at a meeting from a remote location by videoconference call. (Companion bill is H.B. 2560 by Martinez.) H.B. 1888 (Fierro) – Open Meetings: would: (1) authorize a governmental body to hold an open or closed meeting by conference call; (2) define “conference call” to mean a meeting held by telephone conference call, videoconference call, or telephone conference and videoconference call; (3) require that each part of a meeting held by conference call required to be open to the public shall: (a) be audible to the public; (b) be visible to the public if it is a videoconference call; and (c) have two-way communication with each participant; (4) provide that a member or employee of a governmental body may participate in a meeting by conference call only if the audio