Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings And Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Revisor briefs Committee on Federal and State Affairs on open meetings and records law
Summary
A Revisor of Statutes Office staffer told the committee there is no constitutional right to open meetings or records and reviewed statutory duties, exceptions, penalties and practical guidance — including that executive sessions cannot produce binding action and agencies generally must respond to records requests within three business days.
Tom Kessler, chair of the Committee on Federal and State Affairs, invited a Revisor of Statutes Office staffer identified in the record as 'Mike' to brief the committee on the state's open meetings and open records laws.
Mike opened by saying, 'there's no constitutional right for open meetings or for open records,' and outlined the statutory regime that governs access. He told members the Open Meetings Act (chapter 75) and the Open Records Act (enacted in 1984) establish a presumption of openness but leave many details to statute and administrative practice.
Mike explained that 'meeting' is defined broadly to include gatherings in person or via interactive communication of a majority of a public body's membership and that public bodies are broadly defined to include legislative and administrative entities. He noted that an agenda is not required by statute but, if prepared, must be made available, and that minutes are not universally required except when a body adjourns into executive session — in which case the reason for the session must be spread into the record.
On executive sessions, Mike said the law lists specific allowable reasons (personnel matters, attorney consultation, employer-employee relations, negotiations, preliminary real estate discussions, local security measures, among others) and emphasized, 'no binding action can be taken during a closed or executive session.' He added that remedies for violations can include setting actions aside, but only if litigation is brought by the attorney general or a county or district attorney.
Turning to records, Mike summarized that the Open Records Act reversed earlier practice by making records presumed open. He said agencies generally must respond to a records request within three business days, that the law allows a fee (noted in the briefing as 25¢ per page as a 'reasonable' fee), and that there are more than 50 statutory exceptions. He highlighted two exceptions (identified in the transcript as numbers 20 and 21) that commonly apply to legislative bodies: drafts and notes, research data and unfunded grant proposals, and records pertaining to proposed legislation are exempt unless they have been publicly cited or identified in an open meeting.
Mike also described sanctions and administrative consequences: civil fines (he cited 'not to exceed $500' for violations) and possible mandatory attendance at training run by the attorney general. He cautioned members about common missteps, including internal email practices: Chair Kessler reinforced that 'when you reply all, you could be in violation of this pretty quickly.'
During a follow-up question, Representative Wagner asked whether legislators' emails could be subject to public records requests; Mike said constituent emails and some communications can be exposed under the Open Records Act but that communications sent to the Revisor's office or research department ordinarily are not subject to disclosure unless a court orders them in litigation.
The briefing concluded with Mike offering to answer follow-up questions; the committee did not take a formal action on the briefing and moved on to other business.
