Fairfield council receives annual Open Meetings training; new conflict-of-interest disclosures required

The Fairfield Town Council received its annual training on the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act on Jan. 15, when the town attorney reviewed requirements for public meetings, closed sessions and updated conflict‑of‑interest disclosure rules.

The training, delivered during the council’s regular session, covered the act’s purpose of conducting “the people’s business” in public, the definition of a quorum, proper procedures for entering closed meetings and the strict limits on communicating about agenda items outside an open meeting, the attorney said. “A quorum is simply defined as the majority of you here,” the attorney said. He reiterated that deliberations must occur in public meetings and cautioned against email chains or other back‑channel communications that could trigger open‑meeting violations.

The presentation also stressed practical record‑keeping advice: officials should use their official Fairfield email accounts for town business and forward personal messages into that account where appropriate because public records requests can require production of communications regardless of whether they sit in a personal or a town account. “Even if you do public business on your personal email, that’s going to be considered a public record,” the attorney said.

Why it matters: The training outlines legal obligations that affect how council members discuss, deliberate and document town business. Breaches of the Open Meetings Act have produced litigation in other Utah jurisdictions, and the council was reminded that improper use of closed meetings or undisclosed group deliberations may expose meeting content to court review.

The attorney walked through the formal requirements for calling a closed meeting, including a two‑thirds roll‑call vote, a public statement of the reason for the closed meeting, limiting discussion to the stated topic and recording who is permitted to remain for the session. He cited examples from recent Utah cases in which courts found municipalities had not properly invoked a closed meeting, making otherwise privileged discussions public.

He also discussed conflict‑of‑interest filings. Recent changes to state law require elected officials to complete yearly disclosure forms and, in many cases, to post those disclosures while in office. “They changed the law this last year to require that all elected officials have to fill these out, and it has to be posted online until you’re out of office,” the attorney said.

Council members asked procedural questions about social gatherings, communications with developers, and how to handle public comments that raise new issues not on the agenda. The attorney advised that while members may discuss matters informally, any deliberation that could affect a decision should occur in an open meeting or be placed on a future agenda.

The council did not take formal action during the training portion of the meeting. The session concluded with council members signing a certification of attendance for the training.