Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Minutes Posting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Members approve past minutes and discuss May 2 posting problems, caution on multi-member emails
Summary
The panel approved minutes for May 18, March 19 and April 16, and members spent significant time resolving how May 2 minutes should be posted and whether substantive multi-member email threads would violate open-meeting rules.
Members approved minutes for three past meetings and addressed problems with how the May 2 minutes were prepared and posted.
At the meeting, motions to approve the May 18, 2023, March 19 and April 16 minutes were each moved, seconded and approved by voice vote.
A member asked to discuss the May 2 minutes, saying she had sent her draft and a packet of materials to Jamie for video review but later learned Dawn would not accept a revised submission because the posted motions needed to show who voted and how. "What I got back from Dawn was, 'you have to have who voted, you know, what which way,'" the member said, describing the exchange.
Members discussed options for resolving the discrepancy and agreed that substantive discussions among multiple members via email may risk violating open-meeting rules. One member with experience on the matter cautioned, "If multiple members are discussing things on an email chain ... [that is a] violation of the open meeting rules," and the group agreed to avoid multi‑member substantive email threads.
As a practical workaround, the panel agreed members could exchange two‑way emails with a single recipient (to avoid a quorum conversation) and that any final edits or contested items will be placed on a future agenda for formal action.
Members also agreed to check with Jamie and Dawn about the official protocol for posting the minutes and to place a final review of the May 2 minutes on the next agenda.
The meeting closed soon afterward and adjourned.
