Can a county commission in Utah legally hold a private meeting with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior?
No, but it happened with two county commissions in May.
The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance has filed suit against the Kane and Garfield County commissions, claiming the commissioners’ meetings with Secretary Ryan Zinke in his review of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument were official meetings that fall under the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
Because it’s SUWA filing suit, this immediately becomes part of the culture wars between the old guard commissioners and the environmentalists. That’s too bad. In fact, any citizen of those counties should be demanding that the commissioners do the county’s business – the people’s business – in front of the people.
The open meetings act, which has guided Utah governments for decades, requires that any “quorum” of county commissioners (meaning at least two of the three commissioners) getting together to discuss county business is, in fact, a public meeting requiring public notice. There are very specific exceptions for being able to close a meeting, including personnel issues, real estate negotiations and lawsuit strategy. A meeting with a federal government official can’t fit into any of those. What’s more, such a meeting still requires a notice to the public.
And, to be clear, it doesn’t matter if the commissioners say they aren’t deciding anything at the meeting. If they are discussing county business, and surely the meeting with Zinke was county business, it falls under the open meetings law. It’s the deliberations that the commissioners’ constituents have every right to observe. But they can’t do that if the commissioners close the door.
And Garfield and Kane are not the only ones. All three members of the San Juan County Commission met privately with Zinke in Washington, D.C., on the Bears Ears. Again, no notice. Even the former Wayne County attorney recently said she resigned in part because commissioners there weren’t following her advice on open meetings law.
Most disingenuously, the Kane and Garfield commissioners refused to discuss their specific arguments for why they feel justified to meet privately, and then had this to say:“We understand the open meeting obligations the county has and deny any wrongdoing under the act,” Clayson said. “There are a whole bunch of reasons we won’t go into it. We think it unfortunate that SUWA has filed another lawsuit rather than engage in meaningful dialogue.”
That statement is internally contradictory. They “won’t go into it” while criticizing others for refusing dialogue.
That arrogance springs from the confidence that no one is policing them. It shouldn’t be SUWA enforcing the open meetings law. It’s also unrealistic to think that the counties can monitor themselves on this.
This is a job for State Auditor John Dougall, who has shown more spine than any state leader when it comes to making public officials follow the law. Please dive in, Mr. Dougall.