Lake County attorneys brief commissioners on open-meetings, public-records and conflict rules

Lake County commissioners spent a morning work session reviewing Colorado’s open-meetings and public-records requirements, executive-session rules, ex parte communication risks and ethics limits, County Attorney Chris told the group during the recorded training.

Chris told commissioners the Colorado Open Meetings Law (often called the “Sunshine Law”) treats many private or electronic communications about public business as meetings that must be open to the public. "When you think about a meeting, you usually think of things like right now, we're in a meeting," Chris said, calling out texts and group emails as potential public meetings if they involve county business.

The training explained why those communications are also subject to the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). Chris described the county’s centralized public-records process and timelines: a requester’s 3‑day processing clock begins the day after a request is received, staff may extend processing for statutory reasons (up to a 10‑day total in practice), and requests that require more than an hour of staff time or more than 10 pages can incur fees and a deposit before work begins. Chris said the county now routes requests to a centralized public-records address that goes to the county attorney’s office and other designees so requests are tracked and processed consistently.

Christ stressed two practical points about records: officials should avoid informally handing copies to requesters outside the formal CORA process and should not commingle predecessor files with their own records. He warned that missing or destroyed records can create legal risk in litigation and advised commissioners to preserve predecessor materials in a separate, searchable archive.

On executive sessions, Chris reviewed the statutory requirements for invoking the closed‑door exception, including that the board must state the statutory basis for the session on the record and generally have the requisite support to move into one. He noted that attorney‑client privilege can protect recordings or discussions only when the county attorney certifies that privilege and that the board — not an individual commissioner — controls waiver of the privilege.

Commissioners also received guidance on ex parte communications and conflicts of interest, topics the County Attorney described as frequent sources of problems in land‑use and quasi‑judicial matters. Chris recommended that staff and applicants be directed to Planning and Community Development (CPD) early, that commissioners avoid private one‑on‑one endorsements of proposals that may later come before the board, and that any communication that might be relevant be documented to aid later disclosure. "Open to the public does not mean open to public comment," Chris said when describing the difference between meeting openness and the optional practice of taking comment; however, he added that disclosure of ex parte contacts is often the remedy when such communications occur.

The session covered gift and outside‑activity rules. Chris told the commissioners they should be cautious about accepting items that could be perceived as gifts and cited the statutory threshold used in guidance: items with a value above $75 may raise reportability and ethics issues. He also advised commissioners to err on the side of disclosure — either by announcing relevant past relationships at the start of an agenda item or by consulting the county attorney ahead of time — and said the county attorney’s office will recommend whether recusal is appropriate when a commissioner’s impartiality is in doubt.

Staff roles and testimony were addressed: county staff may attend public meetings and speak in their personal capacities, but staff should represent the county only when the board has given explicit direction. Tim, identified in the session as the county manager, said he advises staff testimony to focus on factual, subject‑matter expertise rather than advocacy unless the board has adopted a formal position.

The training closed with practical advice: call the county attorney first if commissioners are unsure, document potentially relevant ex parte contacts contemporaneously, avoid informal document exchanges outside the CORA process and consider separating predecessor documents in a central archive. No formal votes or policy decisions were made during the session; the meeting was a guidance and onboarding discussion for newly seated commissioners.

Ending notes: county staff said they will help archive predecessor files and that the county has listservs and a weekly planner to post meeting notices; presenters encouraged commissioners to use those tools to preserve transparency and minimize litigation risk.