Source: https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/d-instant-messaging/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:01:19+00:00

Document:
There do not appear to be any cases or authorities addressing instant messaging 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 instant messages as well.
There is no statutory or case law concerning instant messaging, 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 instant messaging 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” of the state or jurisdiction of the legislative body” would violate both the Bagley-Keene Act the Brown Act. See Cal. Gov’t Code § 11122.5(b)(2); Cal. Gov't Code § 54952.2(b).
There are no reported court decisions on this issue.
Although the Open Meetings Act does not specifically address meetings conducted by instant messaging, it applies to meetings held by any "means of communication." D.C. Code Ann. § 2-574(1). This catch-all category may include instant messages, 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 instant messages are sufficiently analogous to e-mails to come within the statute's exemption for e-mail exchanges.
The Act does not authorize agencies to meet by instant messaging.
The Act does not address instant messaging. But the Indiana Public Counselor Handbook addresses the question of whether email exchanges are meetings, and a similar analysis could apply to instant messaging groups: “[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.
The Open Meetings Act does not address instant messaging and does not permit meetings to be conducted by instant message. 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 instant messaging between persons could be subject to the Open Meetings law only if the people exchanging messages constituted a quorum of the public body.
There is no statutory or case law addressing this issue. But see 9 OMCB Opinions 259, 265 (2015) (discussing likely treatment of electronic communications by the courts and the factors to be considered).
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 instant messaging.
Instant 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.
Questions have arisen about public officials texting each other during meetings, and open government advocates take the position that such activity violates the Open Meetings law requirement to provide public access to electronic meetings. G.S. § 143-318.13(a).
Simultaneous communication between a quorum of a governing body through instant messaging may be considered a meeting subject to the open meetings law. See N.D. Op. Att’y Gen. 2007-O-14 (2007); N.D. Op. Att’y Gen. 2018-0-10. Text messages, like e-mail, can be used for ministerial purposes, such as setting a meeting date and time, or providing information to review before the next meeting. N.D. Op. Att’y Gen. 2018-0-10.
The statute does not specifically address instant messaging. However, if a quorum of a governing body is instant messaging about a decision or using instant messaging 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). See Handy v. Lane, supra.
Instant messaging 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).
There have been no reported meetings conducted via instant messaging.

References: § 11122
 § 54952
 § 2
 § 2
 § 143
 v. 
 § 52