Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome everybody, welcome back to the Committee on General and Housing. It's still Tuesday, January 13, where we are now is we are, as we will today, tomorrow, throughout this week, we will be hearing from legislative authors of bills, given an opportunity to present their bill briefly and any background they want to give us. And the first of those is an august member of the Ways and Means Committee, Shirley Kimball. So, Kimball, do you want to tell us about Act five sixty two briefly?
[Rep. Charlie Kimball (House Ways and Means Committee)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the Chair said, my name is Charlie Kimball. I'm a representative from Woodstock, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, and coincidentally, my middle name is Augustus, so it's kind of funny. So I'm proposing a short form bill. It's h five sixty two at the request of a constituent who is a condominium owner. It's regarding homeowners association meetings. We have in statute in other places that public meetings of municipalities be accessible by digital means. It is not the same for homeowners association meetings. So this particular person has felt disenfranchised in many ways by not being able to participate because she can't go in person. I'm not sure the reasons why, to be honest, that she couldn't go in person, but there are some decisions made at those meetings with which she did not agree and didn't have an opportunity really to voice her concerns. So this is really a short form to say any meetings of homeowners associations or their legal definition of common interest communities be accessible by digital means?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There is, just so you know, actually interest committee in common interest subdivisions generally are. There's a feeling that it's an area that has really not been revisited in a long time and it needs rethinking and updating. So who knows, this might be part of that. Yes. Are you thinking, like, I'm not entirely sure why that's in our committee, not in gov ops. Is it? It's probably because they couldn't figure out when something's truly miscellaneous it comes to us.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Are you thinking that members should be able to vote in a hybrid manner as well?
[Rep. Charlie Kimball (House Ways and Means Committee)]: Participating, so if it came to a vote, yes. So does this rightly belong in government ops? Good question, I actually went to that committee room first on my way here thinking that it was there, and then here I am.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, well we could relieve ourselves of it if we wanted to. Thank you. Wait, wait, oh, I'm sorry, Gayle, go ahead.
[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: So this, would it be the same as public reading law?
[Rep. Charlie Kimball (House Ways and Means Committee)]: Yes, essentially. Okay. So there is a precedent and a statute to make those meetings open to the public and accessible for members.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just Good questions.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Do you so I haven't looked at the bill just for full disclosure at all.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That was short form. Yes.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Really short form. Are you suggesting that HOAs be or common interest communities be treated like public meetings or simply that they, be required to have hybrid in this access in the same way that public meetings?
[Rep. Charlie Kimball (House Ways and Means Committee)]: Only if they're accessible to their members in the same way that other public meetings could be, but really only to their members. This particular constituent of mine also had concerns over some of the decisions made by the board of her homeowners association and wanted to bring in some additional information as to disqualify some contractors or hold some liability of decisions made by the board as to the quality of work done, but let's get the conversation going at least about accessibility to meetings. There's just so many, so much possible abuse in these common interest subdivisions. It's definitely an area worth work, yes.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right, well, but is this different, is there a difference between what you are proposing, which sounds like it's from a condominium situation as opposed to like an HOA?
[Rep. Charlie Kimball (House Ways and Means Committee)]: Same, I think it's the common interest ownership is the same, falls in the same category.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: That they all fall under
[Rep. Charlie Kimball (House Ways and Means Committee)]: 27 A?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is it
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: the same thing and would it be the same thing in a co op manufactured home community? That a problem?
[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Not to follow public meeting laws, because it's
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So you're in the same boat as a condo or any Thank other
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you, Charlie.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sorry, Mary. I just wanted to make a comment. I do belong to a homeowners association and we have had Zoom meetings.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Are we breaking the law? Is my question because I don't know.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Everyone is invited to go to the board meetings if they so choose. And the only time I don't remember a Zoom meeting is when we've had our in meeting. And we probably would get a lot more participation if we had it by Zoom. But anyway, I think there's, at least in my experience, there's great communication. You can always, they always ask if there's anything you want to discuss, whatever, please let them know. So, I don't know, I hope we're done.
[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: But just to make a comment, there's a huge difference between the public meeting law and like the cooperative meeting. We are really, really strict in the village part of our community, where things have to be posted within three days, and we can do them digitally. I don't know about, you can't vote though digitally.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that this probably is full participation, but it's not the open meeting law. I mean, these are private organizations, so they're not subject to it. Any other questions? Charlie, thank you very much.
[Rep. Charlie Kimball (House Ways and Means Committee)]: Thank you very much.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, I'm Nick, and I can do it in two minutes. One minute, in fact.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: You don't have to go into the You want
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: me to go sit? Chair, please. Okay.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Grilling. You're welcome.
[Rep. Charlie Kimball (House Ways and Means Committee)]: In the books that it is.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Alright,
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we're gonna take Marc Mihaly. So was, we were turned on to this by our esteemed legislative counsel. Apparently law in Vermont says that universities' professors retire at 70, have to, that law has been for more than a decade preempted by federal law, to the contrary, there is no retirement age, but we just left it on the books. At her request, I've just, this just eliminates that so that we're consistent with federal law. What's your phone number?
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I don't know. 532. 532.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What are you trying to show me?
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: This would simply be a correction. Yes, it's just
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: a technique. Correction to get us in compliance with applicable tetra law. It, can I ask you? Is
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: it needed if there is federal law related to this, doesn't it already preempt?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It does.
[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Well, is just a formality. It's just
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: a formality, but given my age, I just felt like I hate it.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: On the other hand, if the federal law was struck down, it would revert to age 70 and it would become problematic.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think also there would be some avenue for discussion Legality of that. Yeah. That's discrimination. Yeah, that's is after the 41.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is exactly what I meant. Like, so if we remove it, then even if federal law was struck down, it's not it wouldn't become a a problem.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: This one makes sense to me.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Any other questions of me?
[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Thank you for coming.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you very much for acting as cheer, madam. You are very welcome. Yeah.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: We should have LALB.
[Rep. Charlie Kimball (House Ways and Means Committee)]: Do you feel like all preemptive laws should be stricken from our books? I
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think that the certain amount of sloppiness and contradiction is a good thing.
[Unidentified Committee Member]: The light.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Arnella, do you need a PowerPoint? Yes. Okay, so you want to get some help and set up? Do have your computer?
[Arnella (Invited Presenter)]: Oh, Dean's bringing it.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright, and she's barking.
[Arnella (Invited Presenter)]: Well, was, a few minutes ago, so she must be coming up the stairs for extra staff.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so we shouldn't bother going offline. Okay, let's stay online, but You want to bring the room? For those who are
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: would take us offline.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Take us offline until Alright. We'll be back.