Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney briefs planning commission on Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, emails and conflicts of interest
Summary
At the April 3 meeting a legal training covered Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act (Utah Code §52), defining meetings and quorums, rules for closed sessions, risks of email and social-media deliberations, conflict-of-interest disclosure best practices, and penalties for violations.
The commission received a training presentation on the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (cited in discussion as Chapter/Section 52 of the Utah Code) and related topics including conflicts of interest and records access.
The presenter (city attorney / legal counsel to the commission) explained that a “meeting” occurs when a quorum of a public body convenes to discuss, receive comments, or act on matters within the body's jurisdiction. For the planning commission that generally means a majority of commissioners; the attorney noted that even discussions by a quorum outside of a properly noticed meeting can implicate the Open and Public Meetings Act.
The training covered these practical points: commissioners should avoid deliberating by email or social media (messages and texts may be subject to public-records requests under the Government Records Access and Management Act), be careful about ex parte or off-agenda discussions with applicants, disclose any actual or perceived conflicts of interest publicly, and understand that final action cannot be taken in closed session. The attorney also explained that intentional violations of open-meeting rules can carry consequences, including criminal penalties in some circumstances and private legal challenges.
Commissioners asked questions about application of the rules to chance encounters, emails between members, and social-media posts. The attorney advised that chance social interactions are not automatically meetings but that coordinated, deliberative communications among a quorum concerning a matter before the body can be problematic. The presenter encouraged disclosure of even perceived conflicts and said staff or the city attorney's office is available for confidential advice.
What’s next: commissioners were reminded to limit deliberative discussion about pending applications to properly noticed meetings and to consult staff or the city attorney when in doubt about conflicts or communications.
