Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Public Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County training underscores Open Public Meetings Act limits on serial meetings and executive-session rules
Summary
Legal staff reviewed the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), explaining when a quorum's exchanges count as a meeting, how serial or "reply-all" chains can create OPMA risk, and the statutory rules for executive sessions and public hearings.
County legal staff told Clark County council members that a quorum conducting county business outside a public meeting can create an OPMA violation, and warned that modern communication (email, text, chains) can produce prohibited "serial" or "chain" meetings. "Don't do it," the presenter said when advising against reply-all or sequential exchanges that amount to deliberation.
The presenter read the OPMA purpose statement and emphasized that a "meeting" is broadly construed when a quorum intends to transact public business; the courts have treated intent and active exchanges as key factors. She explained that forwarding information without comment is less risky than exchanging opinions, but cautioned that actively sharing and responding can constitute deliberation. The presenter cited the court guidance from Wood v. Battleground and other case law to illustrate the difference between mere information sharing and active deliberation.
Executive sessions and final actions
The presenter reviewed statutory limits on executive sessions: the chair must announce the legal basis for closing a meeting, the anticipated reconvening time and whether there will be after-action. Executive sessions may cover matters such as pending litigation or real-estate negotiations, but "you can't vote in executive session," the presenter said, and taking final action must occur in open public meetings. She noted that knowing violations of the OPMA can expose the county or violators to lawsuits and attorney-fee awards.
Practical steps
Advice included avoiding "reply all" on privileged messages, using individual emails for confidential communications, referring public matters to council time or work sessions for open deliberation, and using general subject lines (for example, "pending litigation" with statutory citation) rather than naming specific cases in email subject lines to limit inadvertent disclosure.
Ending
Councilors asked follow-up questions about when public comment applies and how to treat information forwarded for "FYI"; the presenter recommended announcing such items at council reports rather than debating them by email.
