Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Correspondence Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Civic Affairs committee approves rule changes to publish citizen correspondence, adds redaction protections
Summary
On Nov. 25 the Skagway Civic Affairs committee approved amended rules to publish citizen correspondence to meeting packets while adding a formal requirement that the borough clerk redact personal contact information and allow senders to request non-publication before sending the revisions to the full assembly for approval.
The Skagway Civic Affairs committee voted Nov. 25 to forward amended assembly rules to the full assembly that would broaden which written correspondence may be posted to meeting packets and add explicit redaction protections.
Assembly member Deb Potter introduced the changes, saying the amendment would remove the requirement that correspondence be limited to agenda topics and add a sender’s right not to publish. "A sender may request that their correspondence not be included in the public meeting packet by clearly stating, ‘do not publish in the packet, do not publish on the municipal website,’" Potter said during the meeting.
Potter also moved to add language that requires the borough clerk to remove personally identifiable contact information prior to posting. Potter described the proposed redaction clause: "Prior to posting correspondence in a public meeting packet, the borough clerk shall redact personal contact information, including mailing address, email address, street address, and telephone number, but shall leave the sender's name and community of residence visible. Any names or personally identifiable information of someone who is not the sender shall be redacted."
Committee members discussed building an online portal and the possibility of a clear "make it public / don't make it public" checkbox for submitters in the future. Several members said the portal remains a goal but depends on website capabilities and staff time; Potter noted the borough’s current Civic Plus site version has limited upgrade options.
After debating wording about personally identifiable information and confirming the draft would be reviewed by the clerk and legal counsel before appearing on an assembly agenda, the committee approved the amendment and voted to recommend the revised rules to the full assembly for consideration.
The committee did not record a roll-call tally in the meeting transcript; members indicated approval by voice vote. The next formal step is for staff to circulate the amended language to the borough clerk and municipal attorney and for the assembly to consider the draft at an upcoming meeting.
