Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sunshine Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Policy committee flags agenda change as potential Sunshine Act violation; staff accepts responsibility
Summary
Policy committee members said a post-meeting agenda wording change — listing a motion as a 'second reading' — may violate the Sunshine Act because it altered the posted agenda within 24 hours; a staff member acknowledged responsibility and said the error came from editing the working agenda.
A policy committee member raised a possible Sunshine Act violation on Sept. 8 after noticing the posted committee agenda had been altered to list a motion as a "second reading" when that was incorrect. The committee member said changing the motion wording after the agenda was posted could constitute more than a de minimis change and, if reported by the public, could expose individual board members to fines.
The committee member told colleagues the problem was not the policy text itself but the wording of the motion printed on the agenda. "When the agenda was posted... it did state that we were approving it for second reading, which is incorrect," the policy committee member said. The member added that correcting grammatical errors is allowed under the Sunshine Act, "but changing the wording of [a] motion, the intent of a motion, is not a de minimis change, which is a violation of that law." The committee member warned that, if a community member had caught and reported the error, "the 9 board members would be the ones responsible" and could face individual fines.
A district staff member acknowledged the mistake and accepted responsibility, saying the change occurred while editing the committee working agenda: "I had it. I was changing the committee meeting, the working agenda. It must have been paired with the other one. I'll make sure that that doesn't happen." The staff member described the error as unintentional and tied it to updating the working agenda rather than the adopted policy content.
The committee discussed the error but did not record any formal remedial vote or disciplinary action at the meeting; staff said they would take steps to avoid similar posting errors in the future. The committee continued with its policy-review agenda, which includes multiple items slated for first and second readings and some items earmarked for two review periods.
Why it matters: Accurate posting of public meeting agendas is central to open-meetings law and public transparency. The committee's exchange put the potential procedural error on the record and produced an explicit acceptance of responsibility by staff. The committee did not resolve enforcement or penalty questions at the meeting; if a member of the public files a complaint, the district said the posting error would be a matter for whatever oversight process applies under the Sunshine Act.
