A joint hearing of the Government Operations Committees in the New York state Senate and Assembly took testimony in Albany Thursday to consider what to do about the state’s policy for videoconferencing by members of the Legislature, which is set to expire in July 2026. 

Rooted in COVID-era changes, the rules have been extended and expanded multiple times already.

Assembly chair John McDonald said the hearing was to solicit feedback to determine whether to extend the current policy, and what, if any, changes should be made.

“We’ve had this in place for two years. We wanted to get comment on how the public feels it’s working, and that will be brought into consideration going forward,” he said.

While the hearing was specifically about whether to extend existing videoconferencing policy, which permits hybrid meetings and sets guidelines for public access, the testimony extended well beyond that scope.

“Most of the comments today are actually focused on other items that are related,” McDonald said.

That primarily consisted of efforts to expand upon the current statute, specifically, a bill sponsored by Assemblymember Tony Simone that would mobilize a series of stakeholder recommendations from civic groups. 

The bill would mandate hybrid public meetings at the state and local level and loosen in-person requirements for non-elected bodies.

It would codify an authorization of remote participation under certain designated circumstances, while requiring remote voting to be on the record as such.

Rachael Fauss, senior policy advisor for Reinvent Albany, told lawmakers that it’s not just about allowing them to participate remotely, but the public too.

“Members of the public must be able to participate remotely if members can participate remotely. This will make participation much more accessible which in the past has often required in person testimony,” she said.

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause NY, stressed that as far as members, while hybrid participation is important, so are restrictions why and how they participate remotely. The bill outlines specific cases that could lead to a lawmaker’s remote participation, including illness or child care issues.

“There needs to be a strong preference for in-person participation on the part of our elected officials and the ability to participate remotely should be used only in specified emergencies,” she said.

Up for debate too is whether to allow video conferencing in committee meetings, and Lerner stressed that if that is adopted, members of the public should be given the opportunity to remotely testify to those committees on specific legislation as is the case in several other states. 

McDonald cast doubt on the idea that remote participation in commitee meetings would be adopted. 

Over the past several years, there has been frustration directed at the Assembly for a spotty rollout when it comes to broadcasting those committee meetings online, and while Fauss acknowledged that has improved to a degree, she wants to see all meetings live-streamed.

McDonald told Spectrum News 1 that the Assembly has been “working through that” over the past several years and Speaker Carl Heastie has taken addressing the issue seriously.