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

Heading: Cases Construing the Open Meetings Law

Text: We have also emphasized the policy-making aspect of meetings subject to the OML in our case law. In Cole v. State , for example, we held that legislative caucus meetings are subject to the OML and must be open to the public. See Cole, 673 P.2d at 349. The record in that case demonstrated that the caucuses were in reality de facto policy-making bodies. Id. at 348-49. Based on this evidence, we concluded that the OML prevents such a body from fully discussing and debating a measure in a closed meeting and then rubber stamping the same measure in an open session. See id. at 348-49. Similarly, in Bagby v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 186 Colo. 428, 528 P.2d 1299 (1974) we held that, under a precursor to the current OML, superintendent conferences were meetings that must be open to the public. In that case, the entire school board was invited to attend regularly scheduled meetings, convened for the purpose of discussing board business. The record indicated that the agenda [of the meetings] was quite extensive and many of the same matters were acted upon later in ... properly called regular or special meetings. Bagby, 186 Colo. at 430, 528 P.2d at 1300. More troubling was the fact that matters that had been discussed at the closed sessions were usually ... given only cursory treatment and put to a vote [at open meetings], thereby indicating that the underlying pros and cons for the final decisions had been previously dispensed with. Id. Under these circumstances, we held, Regardless of whether formal action is taken, when a `conference' ... is preceded by notice, and held with regularity at specific times and places for the purpose of discussing Board business, it must be open to the public. Bagby, 186 Colo. at 434, 528 P.2d at 1302; see also Littleton Educ. Assn. v. Arapahoe County Sch. Dist., 191 Colo. 411, 553 P.2d 793 (1976) (precursor to OML applies to school board executive sessions convened to review progress of collective bargaining and to determine future policy and strategy ); Van Alstyne v. Housing Auth., 985 P.2d 97 (Colo.App.1999) (Housing Authority meetings held in private for the purpose of considering sale of real estate property violated OML where record showed the decision made during closed sessions was rubber stamped at subsequent public meetings.).