Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Public Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town attorney warns online collaborative edits can trigger Utah open‑meeting rules
Summary
New town attorney Jamie Blakesley told Boulder’s council that collaborative documents in which a quorum participates may amount to a public meeting under Utah’s Open and Public Meetings Act, prompting debate about Google Docs, subcommittees and keeping a clear meeting record.
Jamie Blakesley, the new town attorney retained by Boulder, told the council on May 5 that the Open and Public Meetings Act requires public deliberation whenever a quorum of members is effectively acting together — and that shared online documents can meet that threshold.
"The Open and Public Meetings Act requires that anytime there is a quorum of the council together or present, either in person or electronically, then that meeting and that activity has to occur publicly," Blakesley said, urging the council to avoid back‑and‑forth deliberations in collaborative files and to circulate final meeting packets as PDFs.
The memo Blakesley circulated recommended limiting draft work to fewer than a quorum (for example, the mayor and one council member or a subcommittee), distributing an official packet in a non‑collaborative format, and reserving deliberations for open meetings where the public can observe. He said those steps help preserve an accurate record and reduce legal risk in land‑use and administrative decisions.
Several council members pushed back on the practical effects. Councilmember Josh said the recommendation could reduce transparency and slow the council’s work: "If a document is always public facing and literally every comment is reviewed and discussed during a public meeting, I'm not sure how the intent of OPMA is satisfied," he said, adding that forcing all deliberation into meetings could make the process inefficient.
Planning Commission Chair Nancy Tosta described how the commission uses a public Google Doc to gather commissioner input between monthly meetings and argued the practice makes limited‑staff bodies more efficient. "The document will be a public document. The public will see every comment that's made," she said, urging the council to find compliant ways to keep that efficiency.
Blakesley said there are pragmatic, compliant middle paths and offered to work with staff and councilors to design options that balance efficiency and transparency. He recommended using subcommittees for drafting, asking staff to publish an official, non‑collaborative packet before meetings, and preserving a meeting record that documents deliberations taken in public.
Next steps: the attorney offered follow‑up sessions to design a workable workflow; staff and councilors agreed to explore subcommittees, limited direct edit access for small groups and an approach that produces a finalized PDF record after meetings.
