Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transparency Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney updates council on Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act obligations
Summary
City Attorney Kelly Cogswig presented annual training on the Public Records Act (PRA) and Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA), emphasizing that public records include electronic communications, that campaign materials may or may not be exempt depending on content, and that council members should avoid using personal accounts for city business.
City Attorney Kelly Cogswig provided the council Jan. 21 with the annual Public Records Act and Open Public Meetings Act training, reviewing obligations and practical steps for elected officials and staff.
On the Public Records Act, Cogswig said courts interpret "public record" broadly: any writing that relates to government conduct and is prepared, owned, used or retained by an agency can be a public record. The definition includes electronic communications, such as emails, text messages, social-media posts, and security video. Cogswig warned that documents on personal devices or personal email accounts can still be public records if they further city business and advised council members not to use personal accounts for city business when possible.
Cogswig discussed the Neeson line of cases and said that when the city asks elected officials to search personal devices for records, officials will be asked to submit a declaration describing the nature and extent of their search. He said the city has policy and archiving systems (Pagefreezer) to capture records from official city social-media accounts and advised council members to use those official accounts for public business when feasible.
On campaign materials and records, Cogswig said content determines whether material is a public record—not simply a campaign label. "A true campaign material" might be exempt, he said, but added that the determination is fact-dependent and a court would decide in contested cases. Council members and staff warned that misclassification can expose the city to PRA litigation and cost awards.
Cogswig then reviewed the Open Public Meetings Act, noting that the OPMA applies when a governing body takes "action," defined broadly to include receipt of public testimony, deliberations and discussions. He reminded council that meetings that include a quorum discussing city business are subject to OPMA and that members should avoid serial communications that could constitute an inadvertent meeting. Executive sessions remain permitted for limited topics but no final action can be taken in executive session.
Council members asked questions about campaigning while in office, whether campaign materials are categorically exempt, and whether phones and notes should be restricted in certain intergovernmental committee meetings. Cogswig repeated that the content and use of materials determine PRA applicability and recommended conservative practices to minimize litigation risk. The council did not take action and accepted the training as presented.
