There has been continuing confusion over this point for many years, seemingly caused by a later case in which the Supreme Court said that a village council’s audio recordings were not sufficient as minutes. In the White case, the court said that public bodies could meet their duty to provide minutes by using, “udio- or videotape recordings, word-for-word transcripts, even abstracts of the discussions indicating the identity of the speakers and the chronology and substance of their statements.” In many respects, the easiest way to meet this requirement is to use some type of recording system. A mere listing of the resolutions and votes does not allow for the required scrutiny. One of the fundamental reasons for requiring public bodies to create and maintain minutes is to allow the public to examine the actions that are taken by government officials. Instead, the minutes must provide sufficient detail that the public can, “understand and appreciate the rationale behind the relevant public body’s decision.” White v. To begin, your minutes cannot be a simple listing of the resolutions that the board considered, showing the votes that were cast on each issue. Fortunately, the courts have provided some standards by which minutes can be judged. The OMA, however, does not set forth what the minutes must include or how they must be recorded. The Open Meetings Act (OMA) requires that public bodies keep minutes of their meetings.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |