2008-08-26_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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 the 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-mailing is used to reach a decision. Many cities are moving toward electronic meeting packets for councils and comtTiittees, often sent via e-mail attachments. This sort of one-way distribution of information is fine in terms of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, remerr~bering 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 lvlembers use the "reply to all" feature in a-mail to respond to the content of the meeting materials, or otherwise begin a discussion by e-mail about the packet. This can begin to look a lot Pike non-public discussion of city business. Suggestions One suggestion is that Council Members never communicate to one-another using e-snail., but instead treat e-mail only as a way to receive information from the city clerk or administrator. If a Council Member has information 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 (by a-mail or in paper form). Using the clerk as the clearinghouse for information distribution is probably a safer alternative than having Council Members communicate directly, although it doesn't completely eliminate concerns about violating the open meeting. law. Even this clearinghouse concept. could provide opportunity far 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 Council Members are engaged in direct a-mail discussions, it's probably best to limit it to only two members. A "no forwarding and no copying" rule might be a good way to make sure the Minnesota Open Meeting Law isn't unintentionally violated through a-snail 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. of your council, one Council Member's corntnents an the ]istserv 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. Again, the city might consider a "no reply" sort of rule when it comes to these resources, or perhaps have Council Members send ideas for postings or responses to the city clerk or administrator to manage. Retmember, too, that official city committees are subject to the same open meeting requirements and should be similarly educated about correct e-mail use.