Opinion ID: 2572762
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Open Meetings Law

Text: The OML is intended to afford the public access to a broad range of meetings at which public business is considered. Benson v. McCormick, 195 Colo. 381, 383, 578 P.2d 651, 652 (1978). We have sought to honor this aim by interpreting the OML broadly to further the legislative intent that citizens be given a greater opportunity to become fully informed on issues of public importance so that meaningful participation in the decision-making process may be achieved. Cole v. State, 673 P.2d 345, 347 (Colo.1983). The two subsections relied upon by the District are indeed broad and ensure public access to a wide range of government meetings. Paragraph 402(2)(b) appears unambiguously to require all meetings called by a local public body to address public business to be open to the public at all times. See also § 30-10-302, 9 C.R.S. (2003) (The board of county commissioners shall met in open session and all persons conducting themselves in an orderly manner may attend its meetings.). And paragraph 402(2)(c) is even broader in that it requires notice of any meeting where formal action will be taken or where a quorum of a local public body is either in attendance or expected to be in attendance. Read in isolation, these two provisions lend support to the District's argument that the Board was required to give notice of the Hideaway meeting. Paragraph 402(2)(c) in particular appears to require notice in this case because all of the Costilla County commissioners were invited to attend the Hideaway meeting, and thus a quorum of the Board was expected to attend. However, when these provisions are read in the context of the statute as a whole, a different picture emerges. A meeting is defined by the OML as any kind of gathering, convened to discuss public business, in person, by telephone, electronically, or by other means of communication. § 24-6-402(1)(b) (emphasis added). Although public business is not defined by the statute, the OML's declaration of policy provides: It is declared to be ... the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret. § 24-6-401 (emphasis added). The language used in the declaration of policy suggests that the OML applies to meetings that are convened for the purpose of policy-making rather than, as the District argues, merely discussing matters of public importance. This interpretation finds further support in other provisions of the OML, which stress policy-making as the central focus of the Act. For example, the definition of a local public body is any board, committee, commission, authority, or other advisory, policy-making, rule-making, or other formally constituted body of any political subdivision of the state.... § 24-6-402(1)(a) (emphasis added); see also § 24-6-402(1)(c) (using nearly identical language to define a state public body). In addition, the OML requires certain records to be open to public inspection, such as the minutes of any meeting of a local public body at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs or could occur.  § 24-6-402(2)(d)(II) (emphasis added). And finally, if a public body holds a private meeting in violation of the OML, the remedy is to invalidate any resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance, or formal action ... taken or made at the meeting. § 24-6-402(8). These and other provisions of the OML all emphasize the actions associated with policy-making, and require that the policy-making process be open to public view.