AURORA | While most Aurora governments regularly livestream public meetings, Cherry Creek School District does not. A proposed state law could change that.
From even before the pandemic — when most local school boards and governments began live streaming meetings or holding them remotely — Cherry Creek has been criticized for refusing to broadcast meetings over the internet. The issue was often a topic of discussion during the November school board elections. The district currently only uploads the audio recording of the meeting one day after a school board meeting.
The district does not have a designated school board meeting room. The school board varies the locations of its meetings in an effort to hold sessions at schools across the expansive school district. School officials have previously cited the irregular locations as an obstacle to livestreaming the meetings.
Directors Anne Egan and Angela Garland, who won their re-election campaigns, said during candidate forums last fall, that while they were open to livestreaming the meetings, they also said that there was value in people attending and delivering public comment in-person.
The two people who challenged Egan and Garland, Steve McKenna and Scott Graves, advocated for live-streaming the meetings. Since losing their election campaigns, they have spoken up at the board meetings and said that they are waiting for the district to live-stream the meetings.
As to whether the school district would be forced to allow for remote public comment even if it were to livestream meetings, current law refers to local governments and school boards. Jeff Roberts, executive director of the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition, said public bodies are allowed to make their own rules regarding public comment.
House Bill 1168 requires that those allowed to comment remotely be subjected to no more than the same restraints as those who comment in person.
Cherry Creek school board members have scheduled a closed session Monday evening, prior to the regular board meeting, citing legal advice about the impact of the proposed bill.
The bill, introduced Jan. 31 into the House Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee, states that public bodies must also follow theses requirements:
- Must livestream the video or audio of the meeting that is recorded and accessible to people with disabilities
- Post any documents that will be distributed during the public meeting on their website at least 24 hours before the meeting
- Allow the public to deliver public testimony through a video conference platform unless the location of the meeting does not have broadband internet service.
- Must provide auxiliary aids and services upon request, but may require that people submit these requests at least a week in advance. The proposed bill does not require public bodies to provide hardware, software, internet or phone access at a person’s home.
House prime sponsors of the bill are state Rep. Meg Froelich, D-Denver, and Manny Rutinel, D-Commerce City. State Sen. Nick Hinrichsen, D-Pueblo, is the prime state Senate sponsor.
The bill is slated for its first hearing in the Transportation, Housing and Local Government Committee at 1:30 p.m. Feb. 21.