Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Even if the last councilmember to receive the e-mail doesn't reply to either the originator or the <br />councilmember who forwarded the message, the three members have still discussed city business <br />outside a public forum. A violation could be found where serial e-mailing is used to reach a <br />decision. <br /> <br />Many cities are moving toward electronic meeting packets for councils and committees, often <br />sent via e-mail attachments. This sort of one-way distribution of information is fine in terms of <br />the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, remembering that any materials relating to the agenda items <br />of a meeting distributed to members must also be made available to the public as well. <br /> <br />City officials should start to get concerned, though, when one or more councilmembers use the <br />"reply to all" feature in e-mail to respond to the content of the meeting materials, or otherwise <br />begin a discussion bye-mail about the packet. This can begin to look a lot like non-public <br />discussion of city business. <br /> <br />Suggestions <br />One suggestion is that councilmembers never communicate to one-another using e-mail, but <br />instead treat e-mail only as a way to receive information from the city clerk or administrator. If a <br />councilmember has information to share via e-mail with the rest of the group, he or she might <br />send it to the clerk and ask for it to be distributed from the clerk to everyone else (bye-mail or in <br />paper form). <br /> <br />Using the clerk as the clearinghouse for information distribution is probably a safer alternative <br />than having councilmembers communicate directly, although it doesn't completely eliminate <br />concerns about violating the Open Meeting Law. Even this clearinghouse concept could provide <br />opportunity for three or more councilmembers to exchange opinions about city business, so it's <br />important that the city clerk be aware of and watch for possible issues. Finally, this model would <br />still present problems in Standard Plan cities, where the clerk is also a member of the council. <br /> <br />If councilmembers are engaged in direct e-mail discussions, it's probably best to limit it to only <br />two members. A "no forwarding and no copying" rule might be a good way to make sure the <br />Minnesota Open Meeting Law isn't unintentionally violated through e-mail conversation. <br /> <br />Finally, be careful when councilmembers participate in a listserv or any chatroom sort of forum. <br />Because these distribution lists may include a quorum of your council, one councilmember's <br />comments on the listserv will be viewed by other members. If the topic has to do with city <br />business and another councilmember replies to the listserv, it could prove problematic under the <br />Minnesota Open Meeting Law. <br /> <br />Again, the city might consider a "no reply" sort of rule when it comes to these resources, or <br />perhaps have councilmembers send ideas for postings or responses to the city clerk or <br />administrator to manage. Remember, too, that official city committees are subject to the same <br />open meeting requirements and should be similarly educated about correct e-mail use. <br /> <br />Tbls matarlal Is provided as general Information and Is not a substitute for legal advice. <br />Conaull yoor eltorney for addce ooncernlngepeclflc sltuaUons. <br /> <br />-2- <br />