1E, Council Communications - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jun~08-20D9 15:16 From-PETERSON FRAM BERGMAN 6512281753 1-416 P.003/D06 F-S98 E..mail makes a serial meeting easier by allowing councilor conunittee members to forward · messages from one person to the next Imagine one Council Member e-mailing another to suggest the pros and cons of a particular city decision" The recipient forwards the e-mail to another Council Member~ along with his or her own comments and interpretations.. Even if the last Council Member to receive the e-mail doesn't reply to either tbe originator or the Council Member who forwarded the message, the three members have still discussed city business outside a public forum.. A violation could be found where serial e-maUing is used to reach a decision. Many cities are moving toward electronic meeting packets for councils and committees. often sent via e~mail attachments, This sort of one-way distribution ofinfonnatio~ is fine in terms of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, remembering that any materials relating to the agenda items of a meeting distributed to members must also be made available to the public as well. City officials should start to get concerned, though, when one or more Council Members use the ''reply to all" feature in e-mail to respond to the content oftbe meeting materials, or otherwise begin a discussion bye-mail about the packet. This can begin to look a lot like non-public discussion of city business.. Suggestions One suggestion is that Council Members never communicate to one-another using e-mail, but instead treat e-mail only as a way to receive information from the city clerk or adm;nistrator. If a Council Member has infonnation to share via e-mail with the rest of the group, he or she might send it to the clerk and ask for it to be distributed from the clerk to everyone else (bye-mail or in paper form). Using the clerk as the olearinghouse for information distribution is probably a safer alternative than baving Council Members communicate directly, although it doesn~t completely eliminate concerns about violating the open meeting law. Even this clearinghouse concept could provide opportunity for three or more Council Members to exchange opinions about city business, so it's important that the city clerk be aware of and watch for possible issues. Finally, this model would still present problems in Standard Plan cities, where the clerk is also a member of the council.. If COlll1cil Members are engaged in direct e-mail discussions.it. s probably best to limit it to only two members. A ~"no forwarding and no copying't' rule might be a good way to make sure the Minnesota Open Meeting Law isn't unintentionally violated through e--mail conversation. Finally. be careful when Council Members participate in a listserv or any chatroom sort of forum. Because these distribution lists may include a quorum ()fyour council, one Council Member's comments on the listserv will be viewed by other members. If the topic has to do with city business and another Council Member replies to the listserv, it could prove problematic under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. T ' Yhhi m Clt~tlall~ prDvlded as general intorm.tlon a nd is not a substitute for legal advIce. c:ons u It yau r aU 0 tney for a dvl, Ii:': cones," i n g spec:Jfl c 'S It"~ t Ions. -2-