Please find attached a PDF version of the comments below. I serve as a parliamentarian for multiple organizations, including Virginia public bodies. I have also served on Virginia public bodies as a community volunteer. I am credentialed by both the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians. And I am licensed as an attorney in the Commonwealth of Virginia. I oppose SB876 as it was passed in the Senate because it is too vague regarding: who can enforce the agenda item mandate, how is the mandate enforced, and how can the mandate be bypassed if merited in light of the collective wisdom of the public body. I would have difficulty advising a body how to comply with this new mandate as written. That said, I would be able to adequately advise public bodies if the following amendments were made to the new language introduced by SB876: (1) insert “if any member objects to acting on a newly added item, then” after “but”; (2) strike “such an item” and insert “the item objected to”; and (3) strike “the matter is time-sensitive” and inserting “the members set aside the objection with a two-thirds vote.” If SB876 was adopted with these proposed amendments, then Va. Code § 2.2-3707(1)(G) would read: "At least one copy of the proposed agenda and all agenda packets and, unless exempt, all materials furnished to members of a public body for a meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the public body. The agenda and any subsequent revisions shall be posted on the public body's official public government website, if any, and made available to the public prior to the meeting. Any items added to the agenda after the meeting commences may be considered and discussed at the meeting, but if any member objects to acting on a newly added item, then final action shall not be taken on the item objected to unless the members set aside the objection with a two-thirds vote. The proposed agendas for meetings of state public bodies where at least one member has been appointed by the Governor shall state whether or not public comment will be received at the meeting and, if so, the approximate point during the meeting when public comment will be received." Please either adopt the three tweaks I have proposed or defeat SB876. As written, it would do more harm than good. But if amended, it would fulfill the intent of the bill while being significantly more clear and practicable. Thank you. --Jason V. Morgan

Honorable Representatives, I am an attorney licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia Professional Registered Parliamentarian with the National Association of Parliamentarians, a Certified Parliamentarian - Teacher with the American Institute of Parliamentarians, and a Certified Association Executive with the American Society of Association Executives. I have a small business, JVM Parliamentary Services, through which I provide parliamentary services to various public and private bodies. I have also served on public bodies as a community appointee. I am submitting these comments in my personal capacity. I am opposed to SB876, a bill limiting public bodies in their ability to consider items that were not included in the agenda, because I would have a difficult time advising public bodies on how to apply this law. Smaller bodies and bodies that meet infrequently would be particularly difficult to advise because many such bodies are used to create and hash out ideas. They may have limited capacity to provide full notice for all of the decisions before a meeting begins, or to push such decisions to a future time. I could see this law imposing an undue burden and grinding the work of many public bodies to a near standstill. I could see a chair abusing this rule by refusing to put something the members want to consider on the agenda. And I could see this law creating uncertainty regarding the validity of many decisions made by public bodies. This bill could be salvaged with some small tweaks that make it clear who can enforce this rule and how a body can suspend it. Specifically, I recommend: (1) inserting "if any member objects to acting on a newly added item, then" after "but"; (2) striking "such an item" and inserting "the item objected to"; and (2) striking "the matter is time-sensitive" and inserting "the members set aside the objection with a two-thirds vote." If the bill AS AMENDED was eventually adopted, then Va. Code § 2.2-3707(1)(G) would read: "At least one copy of the proposed agenda and all agenda packets and, unless exempt, all materials furnished to members of a public body for a meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the public body. The agenda and any subsequent revisions shall be posted on the public body's official public government website, if any, and made available to the public prior to the meeting. Any items added to the agenda after the meeting commences may be considered and discussed at the meeting, but if any member objects to acting on a newly added item, then final action shall not be taken on the item objected to unless the members set aside the objection with a two-thirds vote. The proposed agendas for meetings of state public bodies where at least one member has been appointed by the Governor shall state whether or not public comment will be received at the meeting and, if so, the approximate point during the meeting when public comment will be received. " With these changes, I would have enough guidance to be able to provide public bodies with useful support in complying with the proposed law. Thank you for your consideration and for your service in the General Assembly.

Available for questions as Executive Director of the FOIA Council. SB 1029 (Roem, 2025) is the product of a FOIA Council workgroup study directed by SB 324 (Roem, 2024), but the Council took no position on the proposal.