04-007
LB 1179; Circumvention Of The Public Meetings Statutes By Electronic Communication; Electronic Communications As Public Records
Cite as Neb. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 04-007
JON BRUNING
ATTORNEY GENERAL
SUBJECT:
REQUESTED BY:
WRITTEN BY:
STATE OF NEBRASKA
®ffice of tbe ~ttornep <@eneral
2115 STATE CAPITOL BUILDING
LINCOLN, NE 68509-8920
(402) 471-2682
TDD (402) 471-2682
CAPITOL FAX (402) 471-3297
K STREET FAX (402) 471-4725
N'§TATE OF NEBRASI<f'
oFFICIAr..
MAR 8 2004
OEPT.OFJ
LB 11 79; Circumvention Of The Public Meetings Statutes By
. Electronic Communication; Electronic Communications As
Public Records.
Senator Nancy Thompson
Nebraska State Legislature
Jon Bruning, Attorney General
Dale A. Comer, Assistant Attorney General
LB 1179 would amend several portions of the Nebraska Public Meetings Statutes,
Neb. Rev. Stat.§§ 84-1408 through 84-1414 (1999, Cum. Supp. 2002), to specifically
prohibit the use of e-mails, faxes and other electronic communication to circumvent the
public government purposes of those laws. For example, Section 2 of LB 1179 would add
the new language underlined below to§ 84-1411 (3) (h):
Telephone conference calls, e-mails. faxes. or other electronic communication shall
not be used to circumvent any of the public government purposes established in
sections 84-1408 to 84-1414.
You state that concerns regarding the applicability of Legislative Bill11 79 have been raised
with you by city officials who might be impacted by passage of the bill. Consequently, you
have posed two questions to us, which we will discuss below.
Question No. 1: "Will [passage of] LB 1179, Section 2(3)(h) mean that
a member of a city council cannot communicate by e-mails, faxes or
other electronic communication with a number of members constituting
Printed with soy ink on recycled paper
Senator Nancy Thompson
Page 2
a quorum of the city council without violating the open meeting
statutes?"
At the present time, § 84-1410 (4) provides, in pertinent part: "[n]o closed session,
informal meeting, chance meeting, social gathering, or electronic communication shall be
used for the purpose of circumventing the requirements of such sections [the Public
Meetings Statutes]." Similarly,§§ 84-1411 (2) and 84-1411 (3) currently prohibit the use
of videoconferencing and telephone conferencing to circumvent any of the public
government purposes established by the Public Meetings Statutes. As a result, passage
of LB 1179 would simply broaden the number of activities subject to the circumvention
prohibition set out in current law. Under those circumstances, we will begin our response
to your initial question with a discussion of the law in this area under the present statutes.
We are aware of no Nebraska cases which directly address the provisions of the
Public Meetings Statutes prohibiting circumvention of those statutes by certain types of
electronic communication. However, absent anything to the contrary, statutory language
is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Spradlin v. Dairy/and Ins. Co., 263 Neb.
521,641 N.W.2d 356 (2002). In that regard, "circumvent" may be defined as "to surround
or to circle around," or "to get the better of or prevent from happening by craft or ingenuity."
WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY 259 (2nd College Ed. 1982). In addition, the
language in§ 84-1410 (4) pertaining to circumvention of the Public Meetings Statutes was
added to that statute by 1983 Neb. Laws LB 43, and the legislative history of that bill
makes it clear that intent is a necessary element of the prohibited conduct. For example,
the following exchange occurred during the committee hearings on LB 43:
SENATOR LANDIS: This then would be, would have to be a knowing,
intentional act. Social gathering would have to be used to circumvent and
here when you say be used to circumvent, you imply the intent to circumvent
the open meetings law. Is that not accurate?
SENATOR HOAGLAND: Well, I hate to make any definitive statements with
respect to legislative intent, Senator Landis, but and again I think we should
consult with Mr. Peterson on that issue but it would be my sense that, yes,
that some sort of intent to circumvent the law would need to be part of the
proof.
Committee Records on LB 43, 88th Neb. Leg., 1st Sess. 5 (Jan. 27, 1983). As a result,
it appears to us that the circumvention prohibition in the current statutes involves some
element of intent or purposeful action on behalf of members of a public body. Whether
such intent to circumvent exists in a particular instance is a factual determination which
must be resolved on a case-by-case basis.
We have also previously cautioned against "extensive" correspondence among
members of a public body which might constitute actionable conduct in circumvention of
(
I
Senator Nancy Thompson
( .
Page 3
~ .
the Public Meetings Statutes. Op. Att'y Gen No. 94035 (May 11, 1994 ). Consistent with
that opinion, we have generally taken the position, for enforcement purposes, that a
minimal exchange of correspondence or minimal electronic communication among
members of a public body does not trigger the existing circumvention prohibitions. Our
analysis in that regard has focused on the intent of the members of the public body as
evidenced, at least in part, by the extent of the communication which occurred. In that
context, the involvement of a quorum of the public body at issue simply provides further
potential evidence of an intent to circumvent.
Based upon the discussion above, we believe that, under current law, members of
a public body can communicate with other members of that body by electronic means,
even if that communication is directed to a quorum of the body, so long as there is no
course of communication which becomes sufficiently involved so as to evidence an intent
or purpose to circumvent the Public Meetings Statutes. In that context, LB 1179 would
simply add new electronic activities to the currently existing circumvention prohibitions.
Therefore, in our view, the passage of LB 1179, Section 2(3)(h) would not prohibit a
member of a public body from communicating on a topic with other members of that body
by e-mails, faxes or other electronic communication, even if that communication was
directed to a quorum of the pubic body at issue. On the other hand, if that communication
elicited responses and further communications, then at some point, it would be possible
to argue that the public body was intentionally using electronic communications to
circumvent the Public Meetings Statutes.
Question No.
2:
"Does LB 1179, and its' interpretation and
applicability, provide that e-mails, faxes
or other electronic
communications between elected officials and elected officials and
governmental staff constitute public records accessible by the general
public?"
The Public Meetings Statutes contain few references to public records, and it does
not appear to us that the language of LB 1179 amending those statutes would make
e-mails, faxes or records of other electronic communications public records subject to
disclosure to the general public. However, the Nebraska Public Records Statutes, Neb.
Rev. Stat. §§ 84-712 through 84-712.09 (1999, Cum. Supp. 2002), do govern access to
public records in Nebraska, and§ 84-712.01 (1) defines a "public record" to include:
. . . all records and documents, regardless of physical form, of or belonging
to this state, any county, city, village, political subdivision, or tax-supported
district in this state, or any agency, branch, department, board, bureau,
commission, council, subunit, or committee of any of the foregoing. Data
which is a public record in its original form shall remain a public record when
maintained in computer files.
Senator Nancy Thompson
Page 4
(Emphasis added). Under the definition of public record in§ 84-712.01 (1) and the Public
Records Statutes generally, we believe that e-mails, faxes or records of other electronic
communications between elected officials and between elected officials and governmental
staff are public records which are subject to disclosure to the general public, unless there
is a specific statute in each instance which allows particular electronic materials to be kept
confidential.
Sincerely yours,
JON BRUNING
;!i~7J"L
Dale A. Comer
Assistant Attorney General
Approved by:
cc.
05-233-21