Using words such as “alarming,” “horrifying” and “unconstitutional,” Vermont reporters and editors unanimously condemned a proposal on Thursday that would bar the press and the public from in-person access to the Legislature in 2022.
A report issued last week by Freeman French Freeman, an architectural firm based in Burlington, offers two options for how lawmakers could meet safely in Montpelier next year.
One proposal would disperse meetings across Montpelier, using government buildings in addition to the Statehouse, which has long been overcrowded during the legislative session.
The other would allow only lawmakers and legislative staff in the Statehouse, while everyone else could watch only via livestream.
“These recommendations are appalling. They are unacceptable, and they are unconstitutional,” Paul Heintz, managing editor of VTDigger, told members of the Senate Committee on Institutions on Thursday afternoon.
Heintz went on to quote the Vermont Constitution, which states that the doors of the Statehouse “shall be open to all persons who behave decently.” He suggested a lawsuit could be filed over the proposal to bar the public.
Leaders of both the House and Senate have also voiced opposition to excluding the public. On Wednesday, House Speaker Jill Krowinski said the Legislature would never return to the building without providing a way for people to be there “in some way, shape or form.”
Sen. Joe Benning, R-Caledonia and chair of the Institutions Committee, called Thursday’s discussion “a tip of a tip of an iceberg,” and said he doesn’t expect either option in the proposal to become reality — though he did point out the necessity for change.
“Prior to Covid-19, there were air problems inside the building that needed to be addressed,” he said. “One of them is obviously the mold in the building; another is humidity levels. The close confines almost create a petri dish every year for legislators and others to pick up the flu or whatever the case may be.”
Reporters and editors took particular issue with limitations that current livestreaming technology places on journalists’ ability to hear what lawmakers are saying when they’re on the same Zoom channel but haven’t started streaming the meeting on YouTube. Lawmakers insisted their discussions are overwhelmingly innocuous.
“When you’ve got people who work together on policy, from time to time, someone will slip up and start to talk policy,” said Sen. Richard McCormack, D-Windsor. “Always when that happens, someone says, ‘Oh, you’re getting into policy,’ and we back off.’”
Mike Donoghue, executive director of the Vermont Press Association, said there’s no way for the public to know whether that assertion is true because “we’re not seeing it or hearing it, and it’s not being recorded.”
“Only with in-person hearings can the public’s voice be fully heard,” Donoghue said. “Remote-access software allows public officials to more easily limit public speech and avoid contentious issues.”
Several TV journalists said they need in-person access for multimedia coverage. The visual limitations of the Zoom format have curtailed the extent to which they can cover the Statehouse.
“Local television in particular is especially impacted by the technical limitations of the technology,” said Stewart Ledbetter, a reporter and anchor for NBC5 News. “The fact is, most people don’t look very good on Zoom. The ‘Brady Bunch’ shot is very limited, and it’s one reason, frankly, why we’ve scaled back on our usual coverage.”
Ledbetter said Vermont has one of the smallest legislative press corps in the country, with maybe 15 or 20 reporters total, and reporters “make no difference” in terms of congestion in the building.
Sen. Corey Parent, R-Franklin, said reporters often congregate in panel rooms when hot issues are under discussion.
“There’s one or two committees or one or two conversations that have everyone’s attention,” he said. “We’re not talking about putting one or two people from the press in each committee room. When it’s budget time, you might have six or seven folks trying to get in one room.”
Benning kept coming back to an idea of a committee room with a sign outside saying “Capacity: 8” and a reporter insisting on access as the ninth person in the room.
An easy solution, Ledbetter said, would be moving hotly anticipated hearings to larger rooms, saying it’s usually pretty intuitive which issues are going to draw a crowd.
Much of the latter half of the hearing was spent on the idea of when livestreaming should begin for remote hearings. Currently, that’s up to the committee chair — and usually happens once the entire committee is present.
Heintz said that system is “truly troubling” — noting a Wednesday incident where members of a Senate committee, after learning their YouTube livestream was down, decided to go ahead with testimony. Heintz said he thinks that any time a quorum (majority) of lawmakers logs onto Zoom, the meeting should automatically begin streaming, and it should stay that way until a quorum is no longer present.
“Even if people disagree with Paul’s argument,” McCormack said, “we could do this, and it would just make for a higher level of public confidence.”
Jay Barton, general manager of WCAX, said that by January 2022, when the next legislative session begins, it seems pretty clear that Vermont won’t be in a pandemic bubble anymore — restaurants, schools and just about everything else will be open, just as it was before. He said it’s obvious that the same should be true for the Statehouse.
“If we’re not living in a bubble,” he said, “how can we govern in one?”
Benning said Thursday’s hearing was likely the first of many on prospects for convening the next session in person or online.
Editor’s note: Paul Heintz was not involved in reporting or editing this story.
