Opinion ID: 6111527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Content of the Emails

Text: Although we hold that email communication is subject to FOIA's open-meeting provisions, that does not end our analysis. The City argues that even if email communication can qualify as a meeting, the emails in this instance were only background information, and non-decisional information sharing. In McCutchen , the city director provided five of the seven board members with a copy of a proposed ordinance and recommended its passage. Some board members voluntarily stated their positions to the city director. We stated that [w]e recognize that Kelly recommended in the memorandum that Board members pass the proposed ordinance and that some Board members voluntarily stated their positions to Kelly, but Kelly did not solicit responses from Board members in the memorandum, and there is no evidence that the issue was discussed or debated prior to the study session. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Board members exchanged any correspondence about the memorandum. We hold that the circuit court did not err in concluding that Kelly did not violate the open-meetings provision of the FOIA when he presented to  individual Board members, in advance of a study session, a memorandum expressing his opinion on a proposed ordinance that might come before the Board. McCutchen , 2012 Ark. 452 at 12, 425 S.W.3d at 679 . This case is analogous to McCutchen in that no response was solicited. No board member responded to either Good's May 21 email or his May 23 notes on the CSC meeting. Good and Lorenz responded to Geffken's May 22 email, and only Good and Lorenz responded to Geffken's May 30 email advising the board of its options. No decision was made, and the board discussed the proposed CSC rule change at its June 6, 2017 public meeting. Likewise, the August emails regarding the settlement proposal show that no decision was made through the use of email. Geffken sent an email to the board with his recommendations on the settlement proposal and received three unsolicited responses. The issue was discussed at a public-study meeting and because no two board members asked for the settlement to be placed on the agenda for action, the settlement was rejected. The facts here are distinguishable from those in Harris and Rehab Hosp. Servs. Corp. in that no decision was either sought or made. Rather, like the communication in McCutchen , the emails here contain information, a recommendation, and unsolicited responses with no decision. As in McCutchen , the communication does not violate the open-meeting provisions set forth in Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-19-106, and we reverse and remand this matter to the circuit court for the entry of an order consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. Hart, Wood, Wynne, and Womack, JJ., concur in part and dissent in part.