I am a big fan of open meeting laws. I am a big fan of social media. I’m not sure what to make of the legislation to say social media communication is not considered meetings under the open meetings law (HF653). Here’s the proposed bill…
A bill for an act
1.2relating to open meeting law; providing that certain communications on social
1.3media are not meetings under the law;amending Minnesota Statutes 2012,
1.4section 13D.01, subdivision 2.
1.5BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2012, section 13D.01, subdivision 2, is amended to read:
1.7 Subd. 2. Exceptions. This chapter does not apply:
1.8(1) to meetings of the commissioner of corrections;
1.9(2) to a state agency, board, or commission when it is exercising quasi-judicial
1.10functions involving disciplinary proceedings; or
1.11(3) to participation in social media forums by a member of a public body otherwise
1.12subject to this chapter, whether or not a quorum of the public body is participating, when
1.13participation is intended to augment traditional communication methods. The social
1.14media forum must be generally open to public participation. Simultaneous or serial
1.15participation by a quorum or more of members of a public body otherwise subject to this
1.16chapter in a forum or section of a forum that the members know is not open to general
1.17public participation is not exempt under this paragraph. Participation in a social media
1.18forum shall not replace any required public meeting or hearing and no vote of any entity
1.19otherwise subject to this section shall be taken by means of a social media forum. “Social
1.20media” means forms of Web-based and mobile technologies for communication, such as
1.21Web sites for social networking and microblogging, through which users participate in
1.22online communities to share information, ideas, messages, and other content; or
1.23(4) as otherwise expressly provided by statute.
I’m also a big fan of transparency and encouraging civic engagement. It seems to me as if this is an invitation (or at least permission granted) to talk about public issues on a public forum. As it stands, participation in discussions at open meetings is limited to people in the room during the meeting. Sometimes the door may be open to remote participation – but time is still a barrier. To participate, most citizens would need to take time off work, or get a babysitter, possibly travel to the St Paul. Those are some big barriers.
Inviting conversation online and not in real time makes sense to me. Especially with the caveats listed about:
- Forum must be public
- No votes will be accepted via social media
I was a little surprised to read about opposition to the bill in the Post Bulletin…
But critics argue Quam’s bill [HF653] would end up moving important public policy discussions from the city council chamber to online venues.
“It would have converted many public meetings, at least in respect to more controversial issues, basically into ceremonial functions where members show up and vote without much need for discussion,” said Mark Anfinson, a lobbyist for the Minnesota Newspaper Association.
I’ve been to lots of public meetings. They usually include a lot of legislative aides and lobbyists. It occurs to me that conversations are happening outside the open meetings. I don’t think these meetings include a quorum necessarily, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the conversations, I just think that moving some of the conversation online would help policymakers hear from a wider group of citizens who might get more engaged if it didn’t require time off work, travel and babysitters. (What it would require is ubiquitous access to broadband!)
Some folks seem to be worried about the details…
“What this potentially does is gut the open meeting law,” Rep. Jerry Hertaus, R-Greenfield, told fellow House members.
He added, “If it is a requirement to be a friend on Facebook and to have this serial round robin communication between members about a subject matter, then constituents don’t know and don’t get the posting of a notice or a meeting of when these conversations are happening. And that becomes, I believe, a violation of open meeting law.”
Rep. Kathy Brynaert, DFL-Mankato, told fellow lawmakers she also has concerns with the bill — one being that it’s simply too broad.
“The intent is correct. I think we need to figure out how to appropriately use social media to open up the communication process with our constituents,” she said.
I do understand that concern – but there are ways around it. First, time might not be such an issue. These are ongoing discussions. That’s the beauty as far an encouraging greater engagement! Second, how are people hearing about meetings now? Maybe it’s time to start including links to online conversations at the same time. The conversations are happening (in places like E-Democracy Forums, which are public) this just may be a time to connect the existing conversations with policymakers and invite more people to join in.
I wrote the original referendum that asked for this bill to be written. Since then, I have watched with dismay as it has been twisted by the legislative process to where I could not even support it (the 3rd engrossment was completely off base and not well thought out, indeed I referred to it as a “poison pill” designed to make the bill hard to swallow).
My original vision was for a bill that would let OML-governed bodies use well defined social media (defined through the same process as the official newspaper, in a well documented process at the annual re-organization meeting ) as a form of asynchronous discussion forum. The two specifics I wanted ruled out were (1) that the online forums NOT replace public hearings, and (2) that the online forums NOT to permit voting on-line. I would have been happy to have limited this OML exception to townships, my intent was to help townships improve their governing by letting more people weigh in, either as attendees (one could read essentially the entire transcript of meetings one would otherwise miss) or by enabling the longer, more well thought out reasoning that time permits and the face to face meetings may not, especially for rural farmers whose hours are driven much more by weather and circumstance than are most.
In Northfield, under the guidance of the Northfield Citizens Online (which I help found by agreeing to be the Chair of the 501c(3) board) we had attempted a form of these online forums, using moderators and on-line conversations with citizens. We found these to be useful, and although they did not test the limits of the OML because we did not allow a quorum to participate directly, certainly a quorum could have read and followed the discussion. Had we extended to a quorum, we would have risked OML problems.
From my perspective, the forums would support discussions that could easily be compared to a series of letters to the editor of a local paper, except that there would be no editorial filter, and that would be both good and bad. With the requirement to hold public hearing and conduct votes in person, using a well described public media site to augment discussion could level the playing field where rural governments meet urban governments, by letting conscientious rural officials make up for their lack of professional staffs by at least increasing the depth of their deliberations.
I only wish I had more time to devote to shaping and supporting this bill, but I do appreciate the help we have had from the Minnesota Association of Townships and in particular Kent Sulem, MAT Legal Counselor.
Bruce,
Thanks for your remarks. It’s helpful to hear the background. I hope that the bill will resurface – if not this session then in the future. The tools are there to increase engagement, which I think can only be a good thing. We just need the policy and people to catch up.
I remember (hopefully correctly) that Northfield Citizens Online used to hold events that included the local paper and online discussions I thought that was a great way for some controlled discussion and some freer flow of ideas and opinions.
Thanks!! Ann
That’s correct, we hosted topical forums with Griff Wigley organizing and moderating, it was quite interesting. The integration with local media was an objective, but they were sometimes a bit reluctant.
First of all, my disclaimers. I am employed by a tech company and consider myself somewhat technical, also I am an elected official that is subject to the open meeting law. So, I’m probably biased one way or another!
I think that the Open Meeting Law is one of the most important laws in Minnesota. It encourages transparency and forces public officials to conduct business in the “open”, i.e. not “behind closed doors”.
There are significant pressures for officials to do things behind closed doors. A few of the advantages that politicians could find by working outside the public view are that it is easier, faster, hidden from the press reporting on their activities, they can favor their friends/political allies, and they don’t have to listen to other points of view (although the open meeting law doesn’t specifically require this).
The current Open Meeting law could use a “tech upgrade”, but, I have some concerns about the proposed changes.
Here are a few of my thoughts:
1) The Open Meeting law currently does not deal well with things like City Council members participating in a discussion on their City’s facebook page. Case law has created certain Open Meeting Law exceptions for chance or social gatherings. But, I don’t know if those would apply in this example. It would be great if this type of discussion could be permissible.
2) What does “generally open to public participation” mean in the proposed changes? Does that include a website where a citizen has to give personal information to get an account? What if it requires more personal information then a citizen wants to provide? I can’t sign on to facebook without an account. Today, to attend a public meeting, the members of the public don’t have to release personal information and don’t even have to give their name. Does a citizen that wants to be informed give up their right to privacy with the proposed changes? However, an argument could also be made that people tend to be much better behaved and civil in person than online and thus online anonymity isn’t worth the risk.
3) There are no requirements that the social media site chosen be announced to the public. How is a citizen supposed to know how to find where and when their elected officials are discussing things online?
4) What about citizens that don’t have internet access? Do they lose their access to government? Do they go to the local library to participate? I suspect that if this passes, access to government will be used in the future as an argument for more taxpayer funds spent on internet access.
I’d like to see the Open Meeting law “upgraded” to handle remote participation and situations like item #1 above. But, not at the expense of citizen’s basic privacy rights and the right to be informed.