GRATIOT COUNTY — The Oct. 20 Gratiot County Board of Commissioners meeting was not livestreamed.
The meeting that started at 4:30 p.m. on Oct. 20 was not streamed on the county’s YouTube channel. People who attended confirmed it was underway. The county’s Virtual Meetings page still says meetings “will be live-streamed and will remain posted after the meeting is finished.” Recent meetings, including October 6, are marked on the channel as having been live.
The Open Meetings Act does not require livestreaming. Meetings still have to be open to the public, and people can still attend and record. Minutes still have to be kept. Not streaming does not break the law. It does remove the real-time remote access the county has been advertising and providing.
Hopefully a recording may be posted the next day. As of the evening of Oct. 20, that had not happened. It was not clear yet whether residents would get full access through the county’s own channel. People who attended can still share what they recorded. Official minutes will be the formal record once approved. Meeting materials remain available on BoardBook.
Opinion of GC Whistleblower
This is our first official opinion on the decision not to livestream the meeting. We see it as a significant step backward in transparency. The county has been giving residents the ability to watch meetings as they happen without being in the room. That option was not available on Oct. 20. Anyone who could not get to the courthouse lost the convenience the county itself has described as its practice.
The timing also raises questions. The county has declined to answer questions from this outlet on the grounds of anonymity. Stopping a livestream for a regular meeting, after publicly stating meetings would be streamed, is one way to limit remote observation. It is fair to ask whether the decision was meant, at least in part, to reduce outside scrutiny or to make in-person attendance the only practical way to see what was happening in real time.
That is our assessment, not a proven fact. It is based on the practice the county has documented, the language still on its website, and the lack of any public explanation so far. The public record does not establish motive. It does establish that a form of access the county had been offering was not provided for this meeting.
Volunteer public representatives
As of Oct. 20, we were looking for 4 more Gratiot County residents to serve as volunteer public representatives. One person had already applied and was in the process. We will not announce any volunteers publicly until we have all 5.
Volunteers contact public offices, ask questions, and file records requests under their own names. We stay anonymous because officials have declined to answer questions from an unnamed source. Volunteers introduce themselves each time as representing GC Whistleblower. They can add up to five of their own related questions per assignment. They do not write articles. We share how answers are used before publication and take volunteer feedback into account.
Details and the application form are on the volunteer page.
Questions that remain on the meeting
- Would a recording of the October 20 meeting be posted to the county YouTube channel? (Answered Oct. 21: it was; see the update above.)
- Does the county still plan to livestream future meetings the way its Virtual Meetings page describes?
- If the practice has changed, when was that decided and why was no notice given?
We will update as more information comes in. Corrections and responses are welcome.