Laserfiche WebLink
Electronic communication makes a serial meeting easier by allowing council or committee <br /> members to forward messages from one person to the next, to respond to one another via blog <br /> comments,or to chat via social media vehicles such as Facebook, MySpace or Twitter. Imagine <br /> one council member e-mailing another to suggest the pros and cons of a particular city decision. <br /> The recipient forwards the e-mail to another council member,along with his or her own comments <br /> and interpretations. <br /> Even if the last council member to receive the e-mail doesn't reply to the originator or the council <br /> member who forwarded the message,the three members have still discussed city business outside <br /> a public forum. <br /> A similar situation could occur if council members respond to one another's blog,comment about <br /> city business on Facebook,or communicate via a micro-blog such as Twitter. A violation could be <br /> found where serial electronic communications are used to reach a decision. <br /> Many cities are moving toward electronic meeting packets for councils and committees,often sent <br /> via e-mail attachments. This sort of one-way distribution of information is fine in terms of the <br /> Minnesota Open Meeting Law, remembering that any materials relating to the agenda items of a <br /> meeting distributed to members must also be made available to the public as well. <br /> City officials should start to get concerned,though,when one or more council members use the <br /> "reply to all"feature in e-mail to respond to the content of the meeting materials, or otherwise <br /> begin a discussion by e-mail about the packet, or discuss <br /> agenda items on social media sites.This can begin to look a lot <br /> like non-public discussion of city business. Learn More <br /> Read more about risks <br /> Suggestions related to electronic <br /> One suggestion is that council members never communicate to communications between <br /> one-another using electronic means,but instead treat electronic council members,and social <br /> media such as e-mail only as a way to receive information from media and cities,from the <br /> the city clerk or administrator. League: <br /> Open Meeting Law Defense <br /> If a council member has information to share electronically Coverage <br /> with the rest of the group, he or she might send it to the clerk <br /> and ask for it to be distributed from the clerk to everyone else Use Policy a Computer <br /> (electronically or in paper form). Use Polley <br /> Social Media and Cities: <br /> Using the clerk as the clearinghouse for information Questions and <br /> distribution is probably a safer alternative than having council Considerations <br /> members communicate directly, although it doesn't completely These items and more are at <br /> eliminate concerns about violating the open meeting law. Even in the Resource Library of <br /> this clearinghouse concept could provide opportunity for three �http://www.Imc.org <br /> or more council members to exchange opinions about city <br /> business, so it's important that the city clerk be aware of and <br /> watch for possible issues.Finally,this model would still present problems in Standard Plan cities, <br /> where the clerk is also a member of the council. <br /> 2 <br />