By Jeffrey A. Roberts
CFOIC Executive Director

State and local boards, councils and commissions would be required to livestream many of their public meetings and offer remote public testimony under a bill, endorsed Wednesday by a Colorado legislative committee, that is designed to improve access to government for people with disabilities.

“This bill affirms the right to participate in our democracy,” said Rep. Meg Froelich, a Greenwood Village Democrat who is sponsoring House Bill 24-1168 with Rep. Manny Rutinel, D-Commerce City.

“And by allowing remote public testimony, this legislation breaks down barriers that have historically silenced voices dues to geographical or physical limitations,” Rutinel added. “It ensures that every citizen has an equal opportunity to voice their opinions, concerns and recommendations directly to those representing them.”

Members of the House Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee rewrote the introduced proposal, adopting a strike-below amendment aimed at reducing its $1.5 million fiscal impact on state government as well as fiscal impacts on local governments. The revised language also aligns definitions in the bill with those in the Colorado Open Meetings Law.

HB 24-1168 now requires, beginning July 1, 2025, the real-time video or audio streaming of state and local public body meetings for which notice is required by the open meetings law “and at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action will occur.” Meetings at which public comment or testimony will be heard would also be livestreamed.

Also beginning July 1, 2025: Public bodies must offer a remote public comment option at meetings where public comment is heard, and they must post meeting materials at least 24 hours before a meeting or “as soon as practicable.”  

The requirements are less stringent for small communities, defined in the bill as any authority, district or political subdivision of the state with fewer than 1,000 eligible electors at the time of the last election. For those public bodies, remote access and remote testimony must be provided “upon receipt of a timely request.”

Livestreaming and remote testimony would not be mandatory for public body meetings held in areas without broadband access.

Several people representing themselves and groups such as the Colorado Cross Disability Coalition testified in support of HB 24-1168, commending the long-overdue access it would provide.

“Accessibility is more than just physical accessibility,” said Hillary Jorgensen, CCDC’s co-executive director. “For instance, if someone is severely immunocompromised, you can’t be out in public … Remote access is the only way someone who is immunocompromised can participate in their government.”

The Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition supports the bill. In testimony, we noted that the Cherry Creek school board only recently announced, after public pressure, it will begin livestreaming meetings in April. We also noted that some public bodies still make it difficult for journalists and the public to obtain board packet materials.

Representatives of several government associations said they are looking for additional amendments to the bill.

Heather Stauffer, lobbyist for the Colorado Municipal League, said her organization is concerned about recent disruptions during public comment periods at city council meetings, including antisemitic attacks. The remote comment provision in HB 24-1168 would open meetings “to everyone in the world, essentially, and we’d like to continue to work with the sponsors on more ways to tighten that language to ensure that we are able to control that.”

HB 24-1168 also encourages, but does not require, state and local public bodies to make recordings of meetings available “for on-demand use.”

The committee voted 8-2 to send the bill to the House Appropriations Committee.

One of the votes against came from Rep. Don Wilson, R-Monument, who said, “I love where this bill is going. I don’t like the way it’s being executed, as far as financially.”

“In terms of a price tag, I would just simply say that sometimes things cost money,” said Rep. Andrew Boesenecker, D-Fort Collins. “What price would you put on accessibility?”

Follow the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition on Twitter @CoFOIC. Like CFOIC’s Facebook page. Do you appreciate the information and resources provided by CFOIC? Please consider making a tax-deductible donation.