Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Disclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner raises concern about email responses and minutes after June meeting
Summary
Commissioner Amy Saunders said a newspaper report incorrectly listed her as present at the June 17 meeting and requested that an emailed question and staff response be added to the June minutes; staff and the city attorney discussed attorney-client privilege and whether such emails belong in minutes, and the commission approved the June 17 minutes as presented.
During approval of the June 17, 2026 minutes, Commissioner Amy Saunders said the Times-Call incorrectly reported she attended and voted at the June meeting and asked that an email she had sent to staff and the response (including guidance from the senior assistant city attorney) be included in the public meeting record. Saunders said she sent the question in advance because she could not attend and that the information was relevant to the item discussed.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Jeremy Terrell told the commission that emails directed to counsel might be subject to attorney-client privilege and may not automatically be part of minutes or the public packet. Commissioners debated past practice for circulating pre-meeting questions and staff responses; some commissioners said they had seen questions forwarded and placed in packets when relevant. Chair and staff recommended that moving forward commissioners who cannot attend forward questions through the chair and have them raised during the meeting.
After discussion, Commissioner Saunders moved to approve the June 17 minutes as presented without adding her emailed exchange; the motion passed (vote recorded as 6 approvals, 1 abstention on the June minutes vote earlier in the meeting).
