|
Amendments needed:
52-4-203(4)(b)-(g): pending minutes; (h) approve written minutes; (i) approved minutes = official record, but line 123 says written minutes are not required
Finn email, Feb 3
I think we
addressed most of this yesterday:
- Section 52-4-203(4) requires a public body to make approved written minutes available to the public within a certain time. It also requires the public body to establish and implement procedures for the public body’s approval of the written minutes of each meeting. The approval of written minutes – or perhaps the procedure for approval of minutes needs to be modified.
- Even if that requirement were
removed from the statute, SB 97 would still require that the audio
recording, if it is to serve as a substitute for written minutes, include
a digital index that identifies each agenda item and each individual who orally
presented at the meeting. It must also enable a member of the public to
easily navigate to the location on the recording of that
information. Would council members be required to review the
recording to determine that those requirements are satisfied? Would the audio need to be approved if using a
recording as minutes?
- The Bill currently contains a contradiction in that line 109 (reflecting the current law) says that the written minutes of a meeting are the official record of the meeting. However line 123 would allow government entities to avoid having written minutes in some cases. But if written minutes are the official record, what will be the official record if a City does not use written minutes because it uses a recording instead
SLC
To reiterate, my
concern is that line 109 says that the approved [written] minutes are the
official record of a meeting. That is important at least for bond issues
and for proving in court that a city council actually passed an ordinance or
resolution.
However, the current lines 123-130 say that in some circumstances a city could
maintain only on a digital recording and not have written minutes at all.
That would create doubt as to whether an official record of that meeting
existed at all. Statutes should be clear and doubt-free if possible.
That inconsistency could be fixed as follows:
At the beginning of line 109, add: "Except as provided in Subsection
(7)(b),"
After line 130, add: "If a public body maintains only a digital
recording and does not keep written minutes, then the digital recording shall
be the official record of the meeting."
RACHELLE
I have concerns with SB97, which would eliminate the need for written minutes if an audio recording is posted online and allows navigation of the audio. Technology changes all the time, and it would be difficult for cities to keep up with the migration from one technology to another. If a specific format was used for the recording and that company went out of business, it might be difficult to transfer the recordings to a different medium. Also, if by chance the recordings were lost, the history of those meetings would be lost as well. It would free up the Recorder’s time and make our already heavy workload much lighter; however, I think it would be bad practice for cities. The ability to go back and look at past minutes is invaluable.
Thanks for all you do to benefit Cities and Towns. You are a
great asset!!
ME
52-4-203:
(1)Keep written minutes and a recording of an open meeting
(2)Written minutes of an open meeting shall include the
substance of all matters discussed and a record of the vote
Substance and record of vote is met IF a publicly available
online version of the minutes provides a link to the recording
(7)Notwithstanding 1, written minutes of a public meeting
are not required to be kept if the public body maintains a digital recording of
the meeting that is available online to the general public and includes a
digital index that identifies each agenda item and enables a member of the
public to easily navigate |
