Legal counsel reviews Open Meetings and Public Records rules; electronic attendance counts toward quorum

Legal counsel and staff delivered a mandatory refresher Aug. 18 on the Public Records Act and the Open Meetings Act, emphasizing transparency rules, executive-session limits and the consequences of violations.

Anna Matlock reviewed what constitutes a public record and cautioned that routine communications (including texts or emails about board business) can be public records and may create the appearance of impropriety if they involve deliberation among two or more commissioners. She urged members to "err on the side of openness" when determining whether documents or communications should be treated as public records.

On meetings, Matlock said the Open Meetings Act broadly defines a meeting as a gathering of two or more members of a governing body that deliberates or makes decisions. She reiterated that executive sessions are narrow: all three conditions must be present for a lawful executive session (consultation with the board—s attorney, the board must be or face threatened litigation, and attorney-led Q&A). "No decisions are being made during that time," Matlock said of executive sessions; they are intended as attorney-led listening sessions for sensitive matters.

Matlock also summarized a July 1 change allowing electronic attendance to count toward quorum and permitting remote participation while requiring roll-call votes so the public can identify who voted. She said boards must still hold at least one physical meeting with a quorum every two calendar years.

Matlock discussed the Supreme Court—s North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission decision and explained state-action immunity and the supervising-official requirement it produced. She said supervising officials (the commissioner or designee) and attorney oversight help ensure board actions do not constitute unreasonable restraints on trade and preserve immunity for members acting within their authority.

Counsel warned that violating notice or meeting rules can render board actions null and void and expose the body to costs and attorney—s-fees awards. She recommended that commissioners avoid emailing or calling multiple members to discuss board business and that staff blind-copy members on routine distribution lists to reduce accidental deliberations outside of public meetings.