Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the TOMA Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA gets training on Tennessee Open Meetings Act; members warned against serial meetings and undisclosed bias
Summary
Amanda Harrington delivered training on the Tennessee Open Meetings Act (TOMA), highlighting that two or more members deliberating toward a decision can trigger the law, serial communications and staff-mediated messages are risky, and disclosure or recusal may be required to protect due process.
Amanda Harrington provided a training session on the Tennessee Open Meetings Act, emphasizing that under TOMA a meeting can be triggered whenever two or more members of a governing body ‘‘convene to deliberate toward or make a decision on public business,’’ regardless of whether a quorum is present.
"The term convene is often misunderstood because people associate it with physically gathering in a room. That isn't always the case," Harrington said, noting that phone calls, texts, emails, and sequential communications can be treated as deliberation if they collectively shape a decision.
She explained serial meetings (member A calls B, B calls C, etc.) and communications routed through staff can create compliance risks and suggested remedies including full on-the-record disclosure, reopening deliberations in public, or holding a rehearing to cure procedural defects. Harrington also discussed conflicts of interest — actual, potential, and perceived — stressing that disclosure on the record is required and recusal may be necessary when impartiality could reasonably be questioned.
Harrington urged careful notice drafting (time, place, and a clear description of matters) to ensure meaningful public access and due process in public hearings. She offered to provide a full recorded training and materials for the board to review.
The board engaged with questions about social media and rehearing procedures; Harrington advised caution about member comments on pending matters and noted that courts focus on the practical effect of communications rather than intent.
