City attorneys brief commission on Arizona open-meeting rules and conflict-of-interest duties

City Attorney Carl Cooper and Deputy City Attorney Amy Shriver told the commission that Arizona law requires public bodies to conduct business openly and to give the public notice sufficient to inform them of matters to be discussed and decided. The presentation described when a gathering counts as a meeting, how a quorum is defined, and how electronic communications can create an unlawful meeting.

The attorneys said a meeting occurs when a quorum of a public body gathers in person or by technological means and that a quorum is a majority of members. Shriver warned that email chains, text-message threads or social-media posts that involve enough members and discuss matters likely to come before the body can constitute a meeting under the statute. She described “splintering a quorum” (members informally relaying discussion to others) as a common risk for accidental violations.

Shriver explained notice requirements: no meeting may be held on less than 24 hours’ notice to the general public and to each member of the public body; the 24-hour minimum is measured in business hours. She said best practice is to give substantially more notice than the legal minimum. She also reviewed required agenda content, saying agendas must list the date, time, location and specific matters to be discussed, considered or decided; items not on the agenda generally may not be discussed.

The attorneys described the “call to the public” as a discretionary agenda item most city bodies include so members of the public may speak; they noted the public has the right to attend and record meetings but no right to speak unless the body provides a public-comment period. Shriver outlined four responses a public body may take to criticism raised during call to the public: remain silent; ask staff to review the item; ask that the matter be placed on a future agenda; or respond after the public-comment period has closed. She said responses during the call risk triggering a back-and-forth and that the Attorney General’s office typically approaches complaints with an educational emphasis.

On sanctions, Cooper said a court may impose a civil penalty if a public officer knowingly violates Arizona’s open-meeting law; he said the AG process normally begins with a citizen complaint and a letter from the Attorney General’s office giving the public body an opportunity to respond. Shriver and Cooper also reviewed conflicts-of-interest rules, describing pecuniary or proprietary interests and noting that members should disclose conflicts, file paperwork with the clerk’s office and usually recuse themselves from participating in the matter. Finally the attorneys reviewed basic parliamentary procedure used by the commission (obtain the floor, make a clear motion, seek a second, then vote) and answered members’ procedural questions.

The attorneys offered to field individual questions about possible conflicts and to provide additional guidance to reduce the risk of violations.