Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Member, along with his or her own comments and interpretations. <br /> <br />Even if the last Council Member to receive the e-mail doesn't reply to either the originator or the <br />Council Member 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 sent <br />via e-mail attachments. This sort of one-way distribution of information is fine in terms of the <br />Minnesota Open Meeting Law, remembering that any materials relating to the agenda items of a <br />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 Council Members 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 Council Members never communicate to <br />one-another using e-mail, but instead treat e-mail only as a way <br />to receive information from the city clerk or administrator. If a <br />Council Member has information to share via e-mail with the <br />rest of the group, he or she might send it to the clerk and ask <br />for it to be distributed from the clerk to everyone else (by e- <br />mail or in paper form). <br /> <br />v <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Learn More <br /> <br />Read more about open meeting <br />law coverage in: <br /> <br />Open Meeting Law Defense <br />Coverage <br /> <br />Using the clerk as the clearinghouse for information <br />distribution is probably a safer alternative than having Council <br />Members communicate directly, although it doesn't completely eliminate concerns about violating <br />the open meeting law. Even this clearinghouse concept could provide opportunity for three or <br />more Council Members to exchange opinions about city business, so it's important that the city <br />clerk be aware of and watch for possible issues. Finally, this model would still present problems <br />in Standard Plan cities, where the clerk is also a member of the council. <br /> <br />It's available at www.lmc.org. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />If Council Members 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 Council Members participate in a listserv or any chatroom sort of forum. <br />Because these distribution lists may include a quorum of your council, one Council Member's <br />comments on the listserv will be viewed by other members. If the topic has to do with city <br />business and another Council Member 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 Council Members send ideas for postings or responses to the city clerk or <br /> <br />2 <br />