Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Town attorney warns collaborative Google-Doc commenting can trigger Utah open-meetings rules
Summary
Town Attorney Jayme L. Blakesley advised the council that shared, quorum-level commenting on collaborative documents can constitute a meeting under Utah's Open and Public Meetings Act, recommending sub-quorum drafting and distribution of non-editable packets; the Planning Commission expressed concern about efficiency impacts.
Town Attorney Jayme L. Blakesley of Hayes, Godfrey & Bell told the Boulder Town Council on May 5 that modern collaborative tools can create OPMA risk if a quorum of council or commission members is present on a shared document, even if members only comment.
Blakesley told the council the predominant interpretation among Utah city attorneys is that a quorum present on a shared, editable document can constitute a public meeting, particularly in land-use contexts where decisions might be challenged for deliberation occurring outside a formal meeting record. He recommended limiting drafting to sub-quorum subcommittees or the mayor/staff and distributing official meeting packets in non-editable formats (for example, PDF) via the Town Clerk.
Council Member Josh Ellis pushed back on practical transparency concerns, arguing that view-only shared documents with public comment might increase transparency compared with private phone calls. Planning Commission Chair Nancy Nosta said the commission's practice of having commissioners comment in a shared Google Doc helps monthly meetings run efficiently, and warned that prohibiting that method would significantly slow the General Plan work.
Attorney Blakesley offered to prepare follow-up recommendations for the council and to consult directly with the Planning Commission on compliant alternatives. Mayor Cheryl Cox emphasized the council's commitment to public deliberation and trust.
Authority cited: Attorney Blakesley referenced the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (Utah Code Ann. —7 52-4-202) in explaining legal risk. The council directed the attorney to provide options for achieving efficiency while complying with the Act.
