2008_1110_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Council Member I ) along with his or her own cornmentsi and, interpretations. Even if the last Counclil Member to receive the e-mail doesn't reply to either the originator or the Council Member who, forwarded the message, the thrice members have. still discussed city business 1de. a publ'c forum. A violat' outsi ion could be. found where serial e-mailing is used to reach a decision. M'any cities are moving toward electronic meeting. packets for councils and committees, often sent via e-matl attachments., This sort of one,-way distribution of infomiation. is fine in ter-n-is of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, remembering III materials relatin g- to the agenda itcms of a meeting distributed to members must also be made available to the public as well. City officials should start to get concemed, though, when one • more Council Members use the 9,4reply to all"" feature in e-mail to respond to the content of the meeting materials, or otherwise begin a discussion by e--mail about the packet, This canbegin to look a lot like non-public i1scussion of city business. 0 Suggesti,ons One suggiestion is that Council Members: never communicate, to one- anothcr using e-mail-, but instead treat e-Mail only as a way to receive information from the city clerk or administrator. If a -mail with the rest of the group, he or she might Council Member leas info rma n tio to share via e send it to the clerk and ask, for it to be distributed from the clerk to everyone else by e-mail or in paper form). Using the clerk as the clearinghouse for information distribution is probably a safer alternative than baving Council Members communicate directly, although it doesn't completely eliminate conciems 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 problernsin Standard Plan cities, where the clerk is also a member of the council, i If Council Members are engaged in direct e -mail disicusslOns, it's probably best to. 11mit. it to only 'two Members, A "no, forwarding and no copying":' rule migh.t be a good way to make, sure. the Minnesota Iopilen Meeting Law isn't unintentionally violated through e-mail conversation. any Finally, be careful when Council Members participate in a listsery or chatroorn soft of forum, i, Because these distribution lists may include a quorum, of your council, one Council Member's comments on, thelistsery will be viewed by other memberis,, If the topic has to do with city business. and another Council Member replies to the lists,erv, it could prove problematic under the Minnesota Open Meeting. Law. Again, the city might consider a "no reply" sort of rul,e whem �it comes to these resources, or ii perhap�s have Council Members send ideas for postings or responses to the city clerk- or W administrator to manage. Remember, too, that official city cornmIttee s- are subject to the same i open mecting requirements and. should be similarly educated, about correct e-mail use.