Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board attorney outlines recent changes to Utah open‑meetings rules and definitions
Summary
At a Jan. 28 study session, board attorney Paul Van Komen reviewed this year’s revisions to Utah open‑and‑public‑meetings guidance, focusing on a broadened definition of “meeting,” new limits on predetermining action and tweaks to electronic‑meeting rules.
Paul Van Komen, the Jordan School District board attorney, reviewed updates to Utah’s open‑and‑public‑meetings guidance during the Board of Education study session on Jan. 28.
Van Komen told the full board the most notable change widens what counts as a “meeting.” Under the revised guidance a meeting is now defined as “a gathering of a public body with a quorum present … for the express purpose of acting as a public body … to receive public comment about a relevant matter, deliberate about a relevant matter, or take action upon a relevant matter.” He warned that receiving public comment is now explicitly listed as a potential trigger for open‑meeting requirements.
The change matters because it expands the circumstances that can create an official meeting, Van Komen said. He also highlighted two other points: quorum is now strictly defined as a simple majority of membership, and the guidance adds language barring a quorum of members from acting together outside a noticed meeting to “predetermine” an action that will later be voted on in public.
Van Komen noted a number of technical amendments to electronic‑meeting rules, including a broader definition of “electronic meeting” so that any participation by members electronically can fall under the electronic‑meeting provisions. He said the revisions to the electronic‑meeting rules are largely permissive rather than mandatory for this board.
The board discussed several specific scenarios raised by members: whether the new “meeting” definition affects town halls where several board members may attend, how the predetermination provision works (Van Komen said a quorum acting together privately to decide a vote would fall within the prohibition), and the practical requirements for emergency meetings, public‑comment windows, and closed sessions. Van Komen reminded the board that closed meetings still require an initial open‑meeting motion, a stated purpose, and a two‑thirds roll‑call vote to enter a permitted closed session.
Board members asked how the changes affect public comment practice. Van Komen reiterated that Utah law now requires a reasonable opportunity for public comment at open meetings on matters within the board’s authority; the presiding officer retains discretion on whether to allow discussion of items not on the agenda, but final action on an unlisted topic still would violate the Open Meetings Act.
Van Komen also pointed the board to the Utah School Boards Association’s updated guide and the state auditor’s online training. He said the changes in the guidance typically are updated annually after the legislative session and recommended staff circulate the redlined version of the guidance so members can review the precise language.
Van Komen concluded by offering follow‑up training for any board members who wanted more detailed review or one‑on‑one guidance.
