Home
Questions & Answers
Arizona Public Records Access and
Open Meetings Law
Click on a question and the answer will appear below.
Questions about Ombudsman Office
Questions about Public Records
Questions about Open Meetings
Questions about the Ombudsman office
Q: What is the Ombudsman – Citizens’ Aide?
A: The Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide is an office created to help citizens who feel they have been treated unfairly by a government agency. The office is an independent, impartial resource that looks into citizen complaints and helps resolve legitimate grievances. The office provides three categories of service to citizens: coaching, assistance, and formal investigations.
Q: Does the Ombudsman - Citizens' Aide receive complaints regarding local government agencies?
A: Yes, but for matters relating to Arizona’s public access laws only. Generally, the Ombudsman – Citizen’s Aide only handles complaints having to do with administrative acts of state government agencies. Last legislative session, however, the state legislature expanded the office to provide free services to citizens and public officials for matters relating to public access. Accordingly, for matters relating to public access, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over public bodies as defined in A.R.S. section 39-121.01(A)(2). The legislation also expanded the Ombudsman's duties to include preparing materials on public access laws, providing training to public bodies, coaching and assisting citizens, investigating complaints, requesting testimony or evidence, conducting hearings, making recommendations, and reporting misconduct.
Q: Is the Ombudsman - Citizens' Aide a citizen advocate?
A: No. The Ombudsman is not an advocate or someone who will automatically take your side in a conflict.
Q: Does the Ombudsman - Citizens' Aide have enforcement authority?
A: No. The Ombudsman - Citizens' Aide has broad powers to investigate and make recommendations, but no authority to make or reverse a decision and no power to order changes in rules, regulations, policies or procedures. If the office is not able to work out a satisfactory solution, it can send a formal report of its findings and recommendations to the state legislature, governor, local officials, and the public.
A: The Ombudsman-Citizens’ Aide is an office created to help citizens who feel they have been treated unfairly by a government agency. The office is an independent, impartial resource that looks into citizen complaints and helps resolve legitimate grievances. The office provides three categories of service to citizens: coaching, assistance, and formal investigations.
A: Yes, but for matters relating to Arizona’s public access laws only. Generally, the Ombudsman – Citizen’s Aide only handles complaints having to do with administrative acts of state government agencies. Last legislative session, however, the state legislature expanded the office to provide free services to citizens and public officials for matters relating to public access. Accordingly, for matters relating to public access, the Ombudsman has jurisdiction over public bodies as defined in A.R.S. section 39-121.01(A)(2). The legislation also expanded the Ombudsman's duties to include preparing materials on public access laws, providing training to public bodies, coaching and assisting citizens, investigating complaints, requesting testimony or evidence, conducting hearings, making recommendations, and reporting misconduct.
A: No. The Ombudsman is not an advocate or someone who will automatically take your side in a conflict.
A: No. The Ombudsman - Citizens' Aide has broad powers to investigate and make recommendations, but no authority to make or reverse a decision and no power to order changes in rules, regulations, policies or procedures. If the office is not able to work out a satisfactory solution, it can send a formal report of its findings and recommendations to the state legislature, governor, local officials, and the public.
Questions about Public Records
Q: If requested, the Arizona public records law requires a custodian of records of an agency to provide an index of records that have been withheld from the requesting person stating the reason each record is being withheld. Does this apply to political subdivisions such as school districts or other local public bodies?
A: No. This requirement is limited to state agencies, except for the few named in the statute. See A.R.S. section 39-121.01(D)(2).
Q: Are all e-mails sent from, or received on, a government computer a public record?
A: No. While the presumption is that everything created or received on office time with office equipment and personnel constitutes a public record, the nature and purpose of the document determine its status as a public record. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has recently concluded that purely personal e-mail, that has no relationship to official duties, is not automatically a public record just because it was on a government computer and e-mail system.
Q: I requested copies of public records and was told there would be a copying charge of 25 cents per page. May a public body charge for copies?
A: Yes, a public body may charge a fee it deems appropriate for copying records, including a reasonable amount for the cost of time, equipment, and personnel used in producing copies of records. Ten to 30 cents a page is reasonable.
Q: I made a public records request and was told there would be a $15.00 charge for obtaining the records. Is that appropriate?
A: It depends whether the request if for a commercial or non-commercial purpose. If the public records are requested for a non-commercial purpose, then no, the public body may not charge for the time it takes to obtain or search for the records. On the other hand, if the public records are requested for a commercial purpose, the charge may include the portion of the cost to the public body for obtaining the record, a reasonable fee for the cost of time, materials, equipment, and personnel in reproducing the record, and the value of the reproduction on the commercial market as best determined by the public body.
Q: Requesting public records for newsgathering purposes is not a commercial purpose. What about requesting mailing lists to sell newspapers?
A. Requesting a mailing list to sell newspapers is a commercial purposes and the public body may impose additional fees.
Q: May a public body charge for the inspection of documents?
A: No, there is no charge for inspecting documents.
Q: I recently made a public records request for a non-commercial purpose and was told there would be a fee for redacting confidential information. Is that right?
A: No. A public body may not charge for inspection of documents. This applies even if the public body must redact information before making the records available for inspection.
Q: I made a request for public records and was told that they were protected by the legislative privilege. Does the legislative privilege apply to documents?
A: Yes. The legislative privilege shields from disclosure documentation reflecting legislative acts or communications about that act. A legislative act is an act that reflects a discretionary, policymaking decision that may have prospective implications; for instance, the creation of administrative rules to implement legislative policies. The privilege may be asserted by a public official who acts in a legislative capacity regardless of his or her particular location within government.
Q: Many public bodies have public request forms that require a stated purpose for the request. Is this allowed?
A: No. The public body may ask whether the public records will be used for a commercial or non-commercial purpose. If the requester states that it is for a non-commercial purpose, the inquiry should end there.
Q: The Arizona public records law requires that the custodian promptly furnish public records. What does that mean?
A: It depends on what is reasonable under the circumstances. Criteria that will be taken into account include: the agency’s resources, the nature of the request, the content of the records (particularly whether information must be redacted), and the location of the records (for instance, whether the records are stored off site). That said, mere inconvenience does not justify delay.
Q: I requested copies of public records and cannot afford the copying fee. Must the public body waive the copying fee if it causes financial hardship?
A: No. The law permits public bodies to impose a copying fee and does not require a waiver for financial hardship. That said, public bodies are not required to impose a charge for copies.
Q: I requested a record and was told it was destroyed. Aren’t all public records permanent?
A: No. While some public records have permanent value, most records go through a life cycle. Their retention and destruction are governed by a records retention schedule approved by Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records. The retention schedule is a list of record types that is followed by information on how long each type of record should be kept. When the retention period for a record has expired, the record is physically destroyed.
Q: Do the Identity-Theft statutes (A.R.S. §§ 41-4151, -4171, and -4172) affect the type of personal identifying information that may be redacted from public records?
A: No. The legislation adds nothing new to the existing public records law and provides no guidance as to redaction of personal identifying information contained in public records. While government agencies are required to develop procedures to protect entity and personal identifying information from hacking of electronic data and unauthorized access or change to the data, they should continue to apply existing public records principles when this information is contained in a public record. In other words, if entity and personal identifying information is contained in a public record it is presumptively subject to disclosure. Redaction or withholding of information should only occur when the information is deemed confidential by statute or where privacy interests or best interests of the state prevail and trump the public's right to know.
Q: Does Arizona’s public records law require government entities to comply with on-going public record requests?
A: Possibly. In the recent opinion, West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, No. CV-06-0549, ___P.3d ___, 2007 WL 2325602 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, August 16, 2007), the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that nothing in A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D) precludes an ongoing request for disclosure of a narrowly defined, clearly identifiable category of to-be-created documents that the public agency concedes are public records.
Q: Are there any new statutory exemptions?
A: Yes. A.R.S. §§ 39-123 and 124 grant adult or juvenile corrections officers, corrections support staff members, probation officers, members of the board of executive clemency, law enforcement support staff members, national guard members acting in support of a law enforcement agency, persons protected under an order of protection or injunction against harassment, firefighters assigned to the Arizona counterterrorism center in the department of public safety, and victims of domestic violence or stalking who are protected under an order of protection or injunction against harassment the same protection granted peace officers, justices, judges, commissioners, public defenders, prosecutors, and code enforcement officers.
Q: Are there any other new amendments to Arizona’s Public Records Law?
A. Yes. A.R.S. § 39-127 requires, on request of the victim, the court to provide to the victim or immediate family member, if the victim is killed or incapacitated, a free copy of a case transcript arising out of the offense committed against the victim for the purposes of litigation or representation of a victim’s right.
Q: When do the new amendments take affect?
A. September 19, 2007.
Q: Do all e-mail messages received by or sent by an officer or public body, as defined under A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)(1) and (2), constitute public records?
A: It depends on the nature and content of the e-mail. E-mail messages that are created or received in the course of business by a government employee or public official that documents the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the public body are public records regardless of the e-mail system on which they reside. This includes e-mails sent from or received by any e-mail system, including personal and other non-government e-mail systems or accounts.
Q: How long must officers and public bodies, as defined under A.R.S. § 39-121.01(A)(1) and (2), maintain e-mail?
A: E-mail is destroyed once its retention period expires. E-mail, however, is not in and of itself a "record series". It is a medium by which records are transmitted and therefore, its retention depends on the classification of the e-mail. Therefore, it must first be determined what type of record it is depending on its subject, content, and attachments. Common e-mail record series include: administrative correspondence, general correspondence, and transitory information (i.e. junk mail).
E-mails are also often stored on the server backup tapes for a period of time after the back up is run. Records that exist on back up tapes must be restored and retrieved in response to a public records request.
Like any other public record, if an e-mail is kept after its retention period has expired, it must still be furnished in response to a public records request. It may not be destroyed once a request is made.
A: No. This requirement is limited to state agencies, except for the few named in the statute. See A.R.S. section 39-121.01(D)(2).
A: No. While the presumption is that everything created or received on office time with office equipment and personnel constitutes a public record, the nature and purpose of the document determine its status as a public record. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has recently concluded that purely personal e-mail, that has no relationship to official duties, is not automatically a public record just because it was on a government computer and e-mail system.
A: Yes, a public body may charge a fee it deems appropriate for copying records, including a reasonable amount for the cost of time, equipment, and personnel used in producing copies of records. Ten to 30 cents a page is reasonable.
A: It depends whether the request if for a commercial or non-commercial purpose. If the public records are requested for a non-commercial purpose, then no, the public body may not charge for the time it takes to obtain or search for the records. On the other hand, if the public records are requested for a commercial purpose, the charge may include the portion of the cost to the public body for obtaining the record, a reasonable fee for the cost of time, materials, equipment, and personnel in reproducing the record, and the value of the reproduction on the commercial market as best determined by the public body.
A. Requesting a mailing list to sell newspapers is a commercial purposes and the public body may impose additional fees.
A: No, there is no charge for inspecting documents.
A: No. A public body may not charge for inspection of documents. This applies even if the public body must redact information before making the records available for inspection.
A: Yes. The legislative privilege shields from disclosure documentation reflecting legislative acts or communications about that act. A legislative act is an act that reflects a discretionary, policymaking decision that may have prospective implications; for instance, the creation of administrative rules to implement legislative policies. The privilege may be asserted by a public official who acts in a legislative capacity regardless of his or her particular location within government.
A: No. The public body may ask whether the public records will be used for a commercial or non-commercial purpose. If the requester states that it is for a non-commercial purpose, the inquiry should end there.
A: It depends on what is reasonable under the circumstances. Criteria that will be taken into account include: the agency’s resources, the nature of the request, the content of the records (particularly whether information must be redacted), and the location of the records (for instance, whether the records are stored off site). That said, mere inconvenience does not justify delay.
A: No. The law permits public bodies to impose a copying fee and does not require a waiver for financial hardship. That said, public bodies are not required to impose a charge for copies.
A: No. While some public records have permanent value, most records go through a life cycle. Their retention and destruction are governed by a records retention schedule approved by Arizona State Library, Archives, and Public Records. The retention schedule is a list of record types that is followed by information on how long each type of record should be kept. When the retention period for a record has expired, the record is physically destroyed.
A: No. The legislation adds nothing new to the existing public records law and provides no guidance as to redaction of personal identifying information contained in public records. While government agencies are required to develop procedures to protect entity and personal identifying information from hacking of electronic data and unauthorized access or change to the data, they should continue to apply existing public records principles when this information is contained in a public record. In other words, if entity and personal identifying information is contained in a public record it is presumptively subject to disclosure. Redaction or withholding of information should only occur when the information is deemed confidential by statute or where privacy interests or best interests of the state prevail and trump the public's right to know.
A: Possibly. In the recent opinion, West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, No. CV-06-0549, ___P.3d ___, 2007 WL 2325602 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, August 16, 2007), the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that nothing in A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D) precludes an ongoing request for disclosure of a narrowly defined, clearly identifiable category of to-be-created documents that the public agency concedes are public records.
A: Yes. A.R.S. §§ 39-123 and 124 grant adult or juvenile corrections officers, corrections support staff members, probation officers, members of the board of executive clemency, law enforcement support staff members, national guard members acting in support of a law enforcement agency, persons protected under an order of protection or injunction against harassment, firefighters assigned to the Arizona counterterrorism center in the department of public safety, and victims of domestic violence or stalking who are protected under an order of protection or injunction against harassment the same protection granted peace officers, justices, judges, commissioners, public defenders, prosecutors, and code enforcement officers.
A. Yes. A.R.S. § 39-127 requires, on request of the victim, the court to provide to the victim or immediate family member, if the victim is killed or incapacitated, a free copy of a case transcript arising out of the offense committed against the victim for the purposes of litigation or representation of a victim’s right.
A. September 19, 2007.
A: It depends on the nature and content of the e-mail. E-mail messages that are created or received in the course of business by a government employee or public official that documents the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the public body are public records regardless of the e-mail system on which they reside. This includes e-mails sent from or received by any e-mail system, including personal and other non-government e-mail systems or accounts.
A: E-mail is destroyed once its retention period expires. E-mail, however, is not in and of itself a "record series". It is a medium by which records are transmitted and therefore, its retention depends on the classification of the e-mail. Therefore, it must first be determined what type of record it is depending on its subject, content, and attachments. Common e-mail record series include: administrative correspondence, general correspondence, and transitory information (i.e. junk mail).
E-mails are also often stored on the server backup tapes for a period of time after the back up is run. Records that exist on back up tapes must be restored and retrieved in response to a public records request.
Like any other public record, if an e-mail is kept after its retention period has expired, it must still be furnished in response to a public records request. It may not be destroyed once a request is made.
E-mails are also often stored on the server backup tapes for a period of time after the back up is run. Records that exist on back up tapes must be restored and retrieved in response to a public records request.
Like any other public record, if an e-mail is kept after its retention period has expired, it must still be furnished in response to a public records request. It may not be destroyed once a request is made.
Questions about Open Meetings
Q: Are all public bodies required to post their notices, legal actions, and meeting minutes on their website?
A: No, this requirement only applies to cities and towns with a website and a population of more than 2,500 persons.
Q: Are advisory committees and subcommittees required to take meeting minutes?
A: Currently, no; however, HB2208 recently passed. The statutory amendment requires subcommittees and advisory committees to take meeting minutes and post a statement describing legal action or any recording of a meeting on its website within ten working days of the meeting. The new requirement will go into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns.
Q: Are homeowner associations subject to the open meeting law?
A: No. Because they are not governmental public bodies, homeowner associations are not subject to the open meeting law. They are governed by A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
Q: Do all public bodies have to file a disclosure statement?
A: Yes. The public body’s disclosure statement identifies where public notices of its meetings will be posted. Public bodies of the state must file a disclosure statement with the Secretary of State. Public bodies of counties, school districts, and other special districts must file a disclosure statement with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Public bodies of cities and town must file a disclosure statement with the City Clerk or Mayor’s Office.
Q: A group of citizens interested in a particular issue voluntarily agreed to take on tasks delegated to them by a public body. Is the group of citizens now subject to the open meeting law?
A: Yes. While the Board did not officially appoint citizens to a committee, delegation of the public body’s tasks and duties is a delegation of authority, which constitutes an appointment. As a result, the groups of citizens are now an appointed committee subject to the open meeting law.
Q: At a meeting I recently attended, a board member asked the staff to review a matter raised by a member of the public during the call to the public. This matter was not an agenda item. Does this violate the open meeting law?
A: No. At the end of the call to the public, public officials may ask staff to review a matter, or ask that a matter raised by a member of the public be put on a future agenda.
Q: Does the open meeting law exclude weekends from the 24 hour notice requirement?
A: It depends. The open meeting law provides that "meetings shall not be held without at least twenty-four hours’ notice to the members of the public body and to the general public." A.R.S. § 38-431.02(C). While the express language of the statute does not prohibit posting notice on the weekend, whether notice of a public meeting may be posted on a Saturday or a Sunday will depend on two things: First, it will depend on what is required by the public body’s disclosure statement and when the meeting is scheduled to take place. If the disclosure statement provides that notice will be posted at a particular location Monday through Friday except legal holidays, then the public body would be prohibited from posting the notice on a Saturday or Sunday for a Monday meeting. Second, the public must have access to the notice twenty-four hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Therefore, if the public body posts a notice for a Monday meeting on Sunday, and the building in which the notice is required to be posted is not open to the public on Saturday or Sunday; that would constitute a failure to provide twenty-four hours notice and would violate the open meeting law.
Q: Are communications made during executive session subject to the attorney-client privilege?
A: Communications that occur with governmental bodies in executive session can be subject to the attorney-client privilege. Regardless, statements made in executive session are confidential whether or not they are otherwise privileged, subject to only a few exceptions. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that an attorney cannot testify about communications made during executive session even pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. State ex. rel. Thomas v. Schneider, 212 Ariz. 292, 130 P.3d 991 (App. Div. 1, 2006)(review denied September 26, 2006).
Q: Are there any new amendments to Arizona’s Open Meeting Law?
A. Yes. A.R.S. § 38-431 was amended to define advisory committee or subcommittee as any entity, however designated, that is officially established on motion or order of a public body or presiding officer of the public body, and whose members have been appointed for the specific purpose of making a recommendation concerning a decision to be made or considered or a course of conduct to be taken or considered by the public body. A.R.S. § 38-431.01 was amended and requires subcommittees and advisory committees to take meeting minutes or record all of their meetings, including executive sessions. It also requires subcommittees and advisory committees to post a statement describing legal action or any recording of a meeting on its internet website within ten working days of the meeting. These changes take affect September 19, 2007.
Q: Where do charter schools file their initial disclosure statement?
A: The open meeting law requires public bodies to file an initial disclosure statement. See A.R.S. § 38-431.02(A). This is a statement stating where all public notices of their meetings will be posted. Charter schools, however, do not clearly fall within any of the categories of public bodies described in A.R.S. § 38-431.02(A). Therefore, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the Arizona Board of Charter Schools have taken several factors into consideration and determined that charter schools must file their initial disclosure statement with the Arizona Secretary of State.
Q: May board members communicate via e-mail?
A: It depends. E-mail communications are treated the same as any other form of communication between board members. Following are some general guidelines:
- E-mail exchanges among a quorum of the board that involve discussion, deliberations, or taking legal action on matters that may come before the board constitute a "meeting" and thus violate the open meeting law.
- A unilateral e-mail from one board member to a quorum of the other board members that provides information and opinion would not violate the open meeting law PROVIDED the member does not "propose legal action" and the other board members do not respond to the e-mail.
- Serial e-mails between board members that make up a quorum of the board on a subject that may come before the board for legal action violates the open meeting law.
- E-mails from third parties to a quorum of the board would not violate the open meeting law PROVIDED that the board members do not "reply all" if responding back to the third party.
- An e-mail request for information from a board member to staff does not violate the open meeting law even if the other board members are copied on the e-mail and the response from the staff person. HOWEVER, the board members may not engage in discussions or share opinions (via e-mail or other forms of communication) related to the information provided outside of a public board meeting.
- E-mail communications of board members related to their official duties are public records that must be maintained for reproduction and inspection.
- BOTTOMLINE: E-mail communications should be used very cautiously and should NEVER discuss deliberate or propose legal action on matters that may foreseeably come before the Board for action.
For additional information and hypotheticals illustrating the use of e-mail, please review Attorney General Opinion I05-004. A copy of the Opinion may be found at http://www.azag.gov/opinions/2005/I05-004.pdf.
A: No, this requirement only applies to cities and towns with a website and a population of more than 2,500 persons.
A: Currently, no; however, HB2208 recently passed. The statutory amendment requires subcommittees and advisory committees to take meeting minutes and post a statement describing legal action or any recording of a meeting on its website within ten working days of the meeting. The new requirement will go into effect 90 days after the Legislature adjourns.
A: No. Because they are not governmental public bodies, homeowner associations are not subject to the open meeting law. They are governed by A.R.S. § 33-1801 et seq.
A: Yes. The public body’s disclosure statement identifies where public notices of its meetings will be posted. Public bodies of the state must file a disclosure statement with the Secretary of State. Public bodies of counties, school districts, and other special districts must file a disclosure statement with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Public bodies of cities and town must file a disclosure statement with the City Clerk or Mayor’s Office.
A: Yes. While the Board did not officially appoint citizens to a committee, delegation of the public body’s tasks and duties is a delegation of authority, which constitutes an appointment. As a result, the groups of citizens are now an appointed committee subject to the open meeting law.
A: No. At the end of the call to the public, public officials may ask staff to review a matter, or ask that a matter raised by a member of the public be put on a future agenda.
A: It depends. The open meeting law provides that "meetings shall not be held without at least twenty-four hours’ notice to the members of the public body and to the general public." A.R.S. § 38-431.02(C). While the express language of the statute does not prohibit posting notice on the weekend, whether notice of a public meeting may be posted on a Saturday or a Sunday will depend on two things: First, it will depend on what is required by the public body’s disclosure statement and when the meeting is scheduled to take place. If the disclosure statement provides that notice will be posted at a particular location Monday through Friday except legal holidays, then the public body would be prohibited from posting the notice on a Saturday or Sunday for a Monday meeting. Second, the public must have access to the notice twenty-four hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Therefore, if the public body posts a notice for a Monday meeting on Sunday, and the building in which the notice is required to be posted is not open to the public on Saturday or Sunday; that would constitute a failure to provide twenty-four hours notice and would violate the open meeting law.
A: Communications that occur with governmental bodies in executive session can be subject to the attorney-client privilege. Regardless, statements made in executive session are confidential whether or not they are otherwise privileged, subject to only a few exceptions. The Arizona Court of Appeals held that an attorney cannot testify about communications made during executive session even pursuant to a grand jury subpoena. State ex. rel. Thomas v. Schneider, 212 Ariz. 292, 130 P.3d 991 (App. Div. 1, 2006)(review denied September 26, 2006).
A. Yes. A.R.S. § 38-431 was amended to define advisory committee or subcommittee as any entity, however designated, that is officially established on motion or order of a public body or presiding officer of the public body, and whose members have been appointed for the specific purpose of making a recommendation concerning a decision to be made or considered or a course of conduct to be taken or considered by the public body. A.R.S. § 38-431.01 was amended and requires subcommittees and advisory committees to take meeting minutes or record all of their meetings, including executive sessions. It also requires subcommittees and advisory committees to post a statement describing legal action or any recording of a meeting on its internet website within ten working days of the meeting. These changes take affect September 19, 2007.
A: The open meeting law requires public bodies to file an initial disclosure statement. See A.R.S. § 38-431.02(A). This is a statement stating where all public notices of their meetings will be posted. Charter schools, however, do not clearly fall within any of the categories of public bodies described in A.R.S. § 38-431.02(A). Therefore, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the Arizona Board of Charter Schools have taken several factors into consideration and determined that charter schools must file their initial disclosure statement with the Arizona Secretary of State.
A: It depends. E-mail communications are treated the same as any other form of communication between board members. Following are some general guidelines:
- E-mail exchanges among a quorum of the board that involve discussion, deliberations, or taking legal action on matters that may come before the board constitute a "meeting" and thus violate the open meeting law.
- A unilateral e-mail from one board member to a quorum of the other board members that provides information and opinion would not violate the open meeting law PROVIDED the member does not "propose legal action" and the other board members do not respond to the e-mail.
- Serial e-mails between board members that make up a quorum of the board on a subject that may come before the board for legal action violates the open meeting law.
- E-mails from third parties to a quorum of the board would not violate the open meeting law PROVIDED that the board members do not "reply all" if responding back to the third party.
- An e-mail request for information from a board member to staff does not violate the open meeting law even if the other board members are copied on the e-mail and the response from the staff person. HOWEVER, the board members may not engage in discussions or share opinions (via e-mail or other forms of communication) related to the information provided outside of a public board meeting.
- E-mail communications of board members related to their official duties are public records that must be maintained for reproduction and inspection.
- BOTTOMLINE: E-mail communications should be used very cautiously and should NEVER discuss deliberate or propose legal action on matters that may foreseeably come before the Board for action.
For additional information and hypotheticals illustrating the use of e-mail, please review Attorney General Opinion I05-004. A copy of the Opinion may be found at http://www.azag.gov/opinions/2005/I05-004.pdf.
- E-mail exchanges among a quorum of the board that involve discussion, deliberations, or taking legal action on matters that may come before the board constitute a "meeting" and thus violate the open meeting law.
- A unilateral e-mail from one board member to a quorum of the other board members that provides information and opinion would not violate the open meeting law PROVIDED the member does not "propose legal action" and the other board members do not respond to the e-mail.
- Serial e-mails between board members that make up a quorum of the board on a subject that may come before the board for legal action violates the open meeting law.
- E-mails from third parties to a quorum of the board would not violate the open meeting law PROVIDED that the board members do not "reply all" if responding back to the third party.
- An e-mail request for information from a board member to staff does not violate the open meeting law even if the other board members are copied on the e-mail and the response from the staff person. HOWEVER, the board members may not engage in discussions or share opinions (via e-mail or other forms of communication) related to the information provided outside of a public board meeting.
- E-mail communications of board members related to their official duties are public records that must be maintained for reproduction and inspection.
- BOTTOMLINE: E-mail communications should be used very cautiously and should NEVER discuss deliberate or propose legal action on matters that may foreseeably come before the Board for action.
For additional information and hypotheticals illustrating the use of e-mail, please review Attorney General Opinion I05-004. A copy of the Opinion may be found at http://www.azag.gov/opinions/2005/I05-004.pdf.
