Pub. 8 2018-2019 Issue 2

15 • Inform the public what you did. Likewise, making available the results of the meetings summarized in official minutes, as well as complete audio recordings, helps provide accountability that the discussion and actions taken during the meeting were reasonable and in accordance with the law. • Let the public know how to contact you. Public meetings are necessary for making decisions but they may not be conducive to every discussion with community members. Make sure the public knows how to contact board members, so they can reach out to share insights or concerns. The names of board members as well as their contact information (email addresses and phone numbers) and board positions (e.g. chair) should be posted in a readily-accessible manner on the school’s website and the PMN website. In 2017, the Office of the State Auditor (Office) performed an informal review of the use of the PMNWebsite. Our review revealed that charter schools were generally posting meeting notices and agendas as required by State Code 52-4-202(3)(a). Additionally, although not required of charter schools, many were also posting meeting minutes and some were posting audio recordings of those meetings. This is encouraging and demonstrates a commitment to openness, accountability and transparency by many in the charter school community. Use subcommittees wisely Recent news reports discuss the topic of subcommittee transparency. I bring to your attention an interesting Second District Court case involving the Davis School District regard- ing OPMA as it relates to subcommittees (2nd District Case No. 060700578). In that case, the district court judge found that the petitioners were denied their right to participate in the public process through hearing the deliberations and observing the actions that were taken, because the substantial discussion took place in subcommittees. In other words, it is important that information discussed by subcommittees be disseminated in an open meeting where the public can hear it and observe how it is used. We find that some public bodies may be unaware of this district court case or may not grasp its possible applicability, particularly regarding a public body and its subcommittees. I encourage board members to become familiar with these and other nuances of OPMA. Use caution when going into closed session While OPMA specifies that meetings are generally open, closed meetings are allowed by law under very limited cir- cumstances. Some examples of these conditions include discussions regarding certain personnel matters, pending or active litigation, and the purchase of real estate. Even a closed meeting must begin as an open meeting, then be officially closed by a roll call vote. Once the closed portion of the meeting is concluded, the meeting must then be reopened. Most records of closed meetings must still be maintained although not posted publicly. Simply because the law allows a portion of a public meeting to be closed, it does not require the board to close a meeting. Also, ensure that any discussion in the closed session complies with the restriction in OPMA and the justification for the closed session. Conducting official meetings behind closed doors creates suspicion and concern. Many of the complaints that this Office and the Office of the Attorney General receives from citizens are related to meetings that are closed in a manner contrary to the OPMA. Public bodies are required to receive annual training on OPMA and we recommend regular training on this subject. The Office has produced a basic but comprehensive online video training that is free and less than 12 minutes long. View this training at training.auditor.utah.gov/courses/ opma-2018. Boards and relevant staff members may want to view this training together, discussing additional concepts of interest or concern. As specific situations arise, we advise you to consult with your legal counsel. In other words, it is impor tant that information discussed by subcommittees be disseminated in an open meeting where the public can hear it and observe how it is used. We find that some public bodies may be unaware of this district cour t case or may not grasp its possible applicability, par ticularly regarding a public body and its subcommittees. I encourage board members to become familiar with these and other nuances of OPMA.