Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

Definition of "Meeting" in the
Government in the Sunshine Act
P.L. NO. 94-409, 90 STAT. 1241, 5 U.S.C. §552b:

A Chronological Chart

A. Senate

1. S.260, §201 (a) as introduced Jan. 9, 1973 (Chiles):
No definition.

2. S.5, §201 (a) as introduced Jan. 15, 1975 (Chiles):
"... any procedure by which official agency business
is considered or discussed by at least the number of
agency members (or of members of a subdivision of
the agency authorized to take action on behalf of the
agency), required to take action on behalf of the
agency..."

3. S.5, §201(a) Committee Print No. 2, May 2, 1975:
“... . . a gathering, electronically or in person, of at least
the number of agency members required to take
action on behalf of the agency where such gathering
results in the consideration or disposition of official
agency business. . ."

4. S.5, §201 (a) Committee Print No. 3, June 18, 1975:
"... a gathering, electronically or in person, of at least
the number of agency members required to take
action on behalf of the agency where such gathering
results in the joint consideration or disposition of
official agency business. Informal discussions be-
tween only two members of an agency which do not
result in the disposition of official agency business
shall not constitute a meeting for purposes of this
section..."

5. S.5, §201(a) as reported July 31, 1975:

"... the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations concern the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business..."

6. S.5, §4(a) as passed Nov. 6, 1975: Same as 5. above.

C

GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

B. House, Conference and Final Enactment

7. H.R.9868, §4 (a) as introduced Sept. 26, 1975 (Fascell): "... the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations concern the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business..."

8. H.R.10315, §552b (a) (2) as introduced Oct. 22, 1975 (Abzug):

"... the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations concern the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business, but does not include deliberations solely for the purpose of taking an action required or permitted by this section. . ."

9. H.R.11656, §552b (a) (2) as reported March 8, 1976 (Cmte on Govt. Ops.):

46

the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations concern the joint conduct or disposition of agency business..." 10. H.R.11656, §552b (a) (2) as reported April 8, 1976 (Cmte on Judiciary):

66

. . an assembly or simultaneous communication concerning the joint conduct or disposition of agency business by two or more, but at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency, but does not include meetings required or permitted by subsection (d). . ."

11. H.R.11656, §552b(a) (2) as amended and passed on the House floor, July 28, 1976 (Horton):

. . . a gathering to jointly conduct or dispose of agency business by two or more, but at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency, but does not include gatherings required or permitted by subsection (d)..." 12. S.5, §552b(a)(2) as enacted Aug. 31, 1976:

66

... the deliberations of at least the number of individual agency members required to take action on behalf of the agency where such deliberations determine or result in the joint conduct or disposition of official agency business, but does not include deliberations required or permitted by subsection (d) or (e). . .”

Administrative Conference of the United States Recommendation 72-1

Broadcast of Agency Proceedings

(Adopted June 8, 1972)

1 C.F.R. $305.72-1

In recent years radio and television broadcasters have sought live or delayed coverage of many kinds of public governmental proceedings. While Canon 35 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics of the American Bar Association states that broadcasting or televising of court proceedings "should not be permitted," the reasons for this policy, to the extent they are applicable to administrative proceedings, are often outweighed by the need to inform the public concerning administrative proceedings, particularly those of broad social or economic impact, and to encourage participation in and understanding of the administrative process. Therefore, the public interest will be served by permitting radio and television coverage of many administrative proceedings, subject to appropriate limitations and controls.

RECOMMENDATION

A. AUDIOVISUAL COVERAGE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS An agency which conducts proceedings of interest to the general public should adopt regulations, consistent with the principles stated below, which state whether audiovisual coverage of each type of proceeding is permitted, precluded or left to the discretion of the presiding officer or other official under standards determined by the agency.

1. Proceedings in which audiovisual coverage should be encouraged.-Notice-and-comment and on-the-record rulemaking proceedings, and adjudications in which a public interest standard is applied to authorize service or determine its level or quality, normally involve issues of broad public interest. An agency should take affirmative steps to encourage audiovisual coverage of public hearings or oral presentations in such proceedings, including provision of adequate space and facilities, convenient schedules, and the like.

2. Proceedings in which audiovisual coverage should be excluded.Audiovisual coverage should be excluded in adjudicatory proceedings involving the rights or status of individuals (including those of small corporations likely to be indistinguishable in the public mind from one or a few individuals) in which individual past culpable conduct or other aspect of personal life is a primary subject of adjudication and the person in question objects to coverage.

GOVERNMENT IN THE SUNSHINE ACT

D

3. Proceedings in which agencies should balance conflicting values. In adjudicatory proceedings not governed by paragraphs 1 and 2, an agency should determine whether the drawbacks of audiovisual coverage outweigh the advantages of informing the public. When audiovisual coverage is excluded or restricted, the agency should state the reasons for such exclusion or restriction on the record of the proceeding.

B. PREVENTION OF DISRUPTION

Audiovisual coverage should be conducted with minimal physical intrusion on the normal course of the proceeding. Agencies should impose reasonable restrictions on lighting, multiple microphones and other possible sources of disruption.

C. PROTECTION OF WITNESSES

In any public proceeding a witness should have the right, prior to or during his testimony, to exclude audiovisual coverage of his testimony.

« AnteriorContinuar »