e. Social media and online discussion boards

Use of electronic communication e-mail to circumvent the requirement of open government is a violation of the Alabama Open Meetings Act. Ala. Code § 36-25A-1 ("[E]lectronic communications shall not be utilized to circumvent any of the provisions of this chapter.").

There do not appear to be any cases or authorities addressing social media and online discussion boards as meetings at this time, and in general, the same considerations set forth in § I.D.3.b of this Open Meetings Guide concerning e-mails should be applicable.

The same reasoning that applies to email communications in Section I(D)(3)(b) above would apply to social media and online discussion boards as well.

There is no statutory or case law concerning social media and online discussion boards, specifically, but the Attorney General has opined that sequential electronic discussions could be considered meetings under the FOIA. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 2008-055. Public access to such meetings could be gained by logging onto the computer network. Id.

Use of social media and online discussion boards by a majority of a state or legislative body, either directly or through intermediaries, “to discuss, deliberate, or take action on any item of business that is within the subject matter jurisdiction” of the state or legislative body would violate both the Bagley-Keene Act and the Brown Act.  See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 11122.5(b) (Bagley-Keene Act), 54952.2(b) (Brown Act). However, under both Acts, members may engage in separate conversations or communications outside of a meeting to answer questions or provide information regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the body, if that person does not communicate to members of the body the comments or position of any other members of the body. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 11122.5(b)(2) (Bagley Keene Act), 54952.2(b)(2) (Brown Act). Additionally, under the Brown Act, members of the local legislative body may engage in separate conversations or communications on an internet-based social media platform to answer questions, provide information to the public, or to solicit information from the public regarding a matter that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the state or legislative body provided that a majority of the body does not sue the internet based social media platform to discuss among themselves business of a specific nature that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the state or legislative body. Cal. Gov’t Code § 54952.2(b)(3).

Yes. "Meeting" means any kind of gathering, convened to discuss public business, in person, by telephone, electronically, or by other means of communication. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-6-402(1)(b).

There are also no reported court decisions on this issue.

Not addressed by the Act.

Although the Open Meetings Act does not specifically address meetings conducted by social media or online discussion boards, it applies to meetings held by any "means of communication."  D.C. Code Ann. § 2-574(1).  This catch-all category may include social media and online discussion boards, especially when read in light of the instruction to construe the Act broadly to maximize public access to meetings.  Id. § 2-573.  No reported case in the District of Columbia has considered whether social media and online discussion boards are sufficiently analogous to e-mails to come within the statute's exemption for e-mail exchanges.

The use of an “online bulletin board” for discussion of issues that may come before a water management district basin board has been considered in an Advisory Legal Opinion by the Florida Attorney General.  Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 02-32 (2002).

The use of a website blog or message board to solicit comment from other members of the board or commission by their responses on matters that would come before the board would trigger the requirements of the Sunshine Law . . . [and] amount to a discussion of public business . . . without appropriate notice, public input, or statutorily required recording of the minutes of the meeting.

Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 08-07 (2008). The bulletin board discussions addressed occurred “over an extended period of days or weeks.”  Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 02-32 (2002).  “In the absence of any proximity in time between the discussions of the basic board members and the public’s ability to participate in these discussions,” such discussions were a violation of Fla. Stat. section 286.011.  Id.; see Informal Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. (Mar. 23, 2006) (discussing Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 02-32 in regards to town’s proposal to conduct public meetings via an electronic discussion board).

The Attorney General has advised, however, that the use of electronic media to conduct workshops and informal meetings was acceptable where the meetings were noticed, conducted at a certain time, and the public was afforded an opportunity to participate during the meeting.  Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 01-66 (2001).  The Attorney General has indicated that “[a]ccess must be available not only to those members of the public possessing a computer with internet access, but also to those who may not have access to the Internet.  Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 08-65 (2008).  Computers with internet access must be made available to the public in designated places within the entity’s jurisdictional boundaries.  See id.; Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 01-66 (2001).  Operating assistance must also be provided.  Op. Att’y Gen. Fla. 08-65 (2008).  The text of such online discussions would be public records, and minutes must be promptly prepared and recorded.  See id. 

The Act does not authorize agencies to meet by social media or online discussion board.

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.

See above.

The Act does not address social media and online discussion boards. But the Indiana Public Counselor Handbook addresses the question of whether email exchanges are meetings, and a similar analysis could apply social media and online discussion boards: “[w]hether an email exchange is considered a meeting is largely dependent upon the nature and intent of the communication. If the governing body is trying to communicate simultaneously and expecting an immediate call-and-response type dialogue for the purpose of taking official action on business, the exchange constitutes a meeting.” The Handbook is available at the following link: https://www.in.gov/pac/files/PAC%20Handbook%202017.pdf.

Not unless the system would permit "a gathering."

Interactive communication, for the purposes of KOMA, requires a mutual or reciprocal exchange between or among members of a body or agency subject to KOMA. Kan. Att’y Gen. Op. 2009-22.

The Open Meetings Act does not address social media or online discussion boards and does not permit meetings to be conducted by social media or discussion board. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.810(2).

No specific provision, but “meeting” is defined as “the convening of a quorum of a public body,” so use of social media or online discussion boards could be subject to the Open Meetings law only if the people doing so constituted a quorum of the public body.”

There are no Maine decisions on whether the use of social media and online discussion boards constitute a meeting, but the purpose of the public meetings law is broad and would prevent the use of electronic means to hold meetings.  “It is further the intent of the Legislature that clandestine meetings, conferences or meetings held on private property without proper notice and ample opportunity for attendance by the public not be used to defeat the purposes of this subchapter.”  1 M.R.S.A. § 401. The same logic applicable to e-mail applies to social media and online discussion boards.

There is a new law, effective July 30, 2021, that expressly prohibits “the conducting of public proceedings by text-only means, including but not limited to . . .  chat functions.” 1 M.R.S. §403-B (2021).

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue. But see OMA Manual, at 1-10 (discussing the participation of a quorum in near-simultaneous electronic communications); 9 OMCB Opinions 259, 265 (2015) (discussing likely treatment of electronic communications by the courts and the factors to be considered).

Not addressed by the law.

Social media and online discussion boards are not among the permissible forms of electronic meeting under the Open Meeting Law. However, use of social media by members of a public body is not considered a violation of the Open Meeting Law, provided that it is limited to exchanges with all members of the general public. Minn. Stat. § 13D.065.

No specific reference in the Act, but presumably covered by § 25-41-3(b).

The definition of public meeting includes meeting conducted by communication equipment. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.010(5). If a public body plans to meet by internet message board, or other computer link, it shall post a notice of the meeting on its website in addition to its principal office and shall notify the public how to access that meeting. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.020.1.

Since electronic discussion during the convening of a quorum of a public body constitutes a meeting, it is prohibited unless the public has contemporaneous access to the on line discussion.

There is no law on point.

Social media messages that are used by a quorum of the members of a public body to deliberate towards a decision or that are used to poll members of a public body are likely covered by the law. The OML does not define or distinguish regular meetings, except as opposed to an emergency meeting.

No. See RSA 91-A:2,III.

Any gathering by means of communication equipment, which satisfies the other requirements of N.J.S.A. 10:4-8b constitutes a “meeting” under OPMA.

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.

Not addressed.

Not addressed by statute.

There is no case or statutory law specifically addressing this issue, but simultaneous communication between a quorum of a governing body through nontraditional means has been considered a meeting subject to the open meetings law. See N.D. Op. Att’y Gen. 2007-O-14 (2007).

The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated, “R.C. 121.22 prohibits any private prearranged discussion of public business by a majority of the members of a public body regardless of whether the discussion occurs face to face, telephonically, by video conference, or electronically by e-mail, text, tweet, or other form of communication.” White v. King, 147 Ohio St. 3d 74, 78, 60 N.E.3d 1234, 1238, 2016-Ohio-2770, ¶ 15.

No electronic or telephonic communications, except for videoconferences specifically allowed in 25 O.S. § 307.1, among a majority of the members of a public body shall be used to decide any action or take any vote. 25 O.S. § 306.

The statute does not specifically address social media or online discussion boards. However, if a quorum of a governing body is using social media or online discussion boards for a decision or to deliberate toward a decision, the Public Meetings Law applies. Notice and an opportunity for the public to “listen” and “attend” would be required. ORS 192.670(2).

There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue.

See above.

Presumably open

Only if such communications meet the requirements for email, as stated above.

In an interim report to the 82^nd Legislature in 2010, the Senate Committee on State Affairs addressed challenges in applying the Act presented by new technologies, noting: “under the current interpretations of the Act, a quorum would exist if a majority of the governmental body discusses public business on a Facebook Wall . . . A similar situation could arise with Twitter where members can have public or private accounts.” Senate Committee on State Affairs, Interim Report to the 82nd Legislature at 59 (2010).

Social media and online discussion boards may qualify as an “electronic meeting” that is “convened or conducted by means of a conference using electronic communications.” See Utah Code § 52-4-103(4)-(5).

The Open Meeting Law excludes from the definition of meeting “any communication, including in person or through e-mail, telephone, or teleconferencing, between members of a public body for the purpose of scheduling a meeting, organizing an agenda, or distributing materials to discuss at a meeting, provided that: (i) no other business of the public body is discussed or conducted; and (ii) such a communication that results in written or recorded information shall be available for inspection and copying under the Public Records Act.”  1 V.S.A. § 310(3)(B).

Physical presence is required for all non-electronic meetings.  The statute governing electronic meetings provides that the voices of remote participants must be heard by the public, eliminating by implication the use of any social media or online platforms for meetings.

There is no authority addressing this issue.

There have been no reported meetings conducted using social media or online discussion boards.

Wisconsin has not addressed this issue.