Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney reviews Open and Public Meetings Act, HB 36 changes and transition plans
Summary
County Attorney Rob Van Dyke gave the commission required annual training on Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act, highlighting HB 36 revisions that change how a "meeting" is convened and stressing limits on predetermined action; Van Dyke also explained his pending judicial appointment and transition timeline.
Rob Van Dyke, Kane County attorney, presented the commission with the annual Open and Public Meetings Act training and outlined three core requirements: adequate notice, an open public process and accurate records. Van Dyke reviewed case law including Warrick v. Richfield and a Springdale decision to illustrate agenda specificity and compliance with local ordinances.
Van Dyke described recent legislative changes under HB 36 that narrow what counts as a convened meeting by requiring that it be formally convened by an authorized individual and that the gathering be for the purpose of acting as a public body on a relevant matter. "You can share ideas," he said, "but you cannot act in a concerted and deliberate way to predetermine an action on a relevant matter." He emphasized that the law also bars "predetermined action" even outside a formally convened meeting.
He explained practical effects for the commission: administrative staff must provide appropriate notice (class A notices apply for this body), electronic meeting policies must address quorum calculations, and certain quasi-judicial proceedings may allow closed sessions for final deliberations. Van Dyke noted enforcement is typically civil (courts can rescind actions and award attorney fees) and that criminal penalties apply only for knowing or intentional violations.
During questions, Commissioner Lara Claisen asked whether members may seek informal feedback from colleagues outside a convened meeting and then make a decision at the next formal meeting. Van Dyke replied that informal discussion is permitted so long as members do not reach a predetermined outcome before the commission convenes. He reiterated the practical quorum for this seven-member body is four.
Van Dyke also told the commission he will continue to serve as county attorney until he takes the bench if confirmed; he said he expects a Senate vote later in February and a likely March transition, and that the county commissioners will appoint a successor.
