Heated meeting, training leave some Uinta County City Council members as confused as before
EVANSTON — At the city council work session on March 25, Evanston City Attorney Mark Harris conducted a training for council members on Wyoming’s Open Meetings Act. At the end of the hour-long training, some council members said they were still confused as to a clear definition of what “sequential communication” is and what constitutes a violation of the act.
Harris read the Wyoming Open Meetings Act and gave examples, which still led to confusion.
“Definition of a meeting is when members meet for the purpose of taking action — official business, to pass a resolution or motion,” he explained. “The meeting can be in-person, by telephone or any other form of communication that occurs between councilors. However, in this case, just because no action was taken doesn’t mean it wasn’t a meeting. It was called for an express purpose.”
Councilmembers Jen Hegeman, Jesse Lind and Mike Sellers — three of the four council members Harris found to be in violation of the OMA (Tim Lynch was also involved but is no longer on the council) — argued with Harris and the conversation became heated.
Responding to Harris, Hegeman insisted that perspective and a liberal interpretation play a huge part in interpreting what constitutes an open meeting.
Harris said, “A liberal interpretation is applied by the courts.”
Lind asked, “How can we make the rules work for us?”
The three council members were frustrated as they still maintained they did not violate the act and were following the advice of the Wyoming Association of Municipalities attorney.
“The definition of sequential communication is so gray, it is almost opaque,” Hegeman said to Harris, “Also, the taxpayers pay you to represent all of us on the council as your clients.”
Harris said he represents the city as a whole, not each council member individually but, if they have a question about a rule, they should ask him.
Sellers asked Harris, “Who defines the intent of the communication?”
Harris did not respond directly to Sellers’ question but began describing the different types of meetings that have to be open to the public. Those include special meetings in which the public attends but is not allowed to speak without the authority’s permission. These meetings require an eight-hour notice.
It also includes emergency meetings, which involve concern of an immediate issue and action is taken within 48 hours, along with regular meetings of the city council.
Minutes for the above meetings are required to be taken and must be made available to the public. All minutes taken where an action is taken must be published for the public.
Executive sessions are private meetings called for in a public meeting and must be approved by two-thirds of the council. The public is not allowed to attend executive sessions. Minutes must be kept to be available for action to be taken in a regular meeting, but are not available to the public.
Lind asked for a definition of an action.
“Action means when all agree a decision is made. It doesn’t require a vote,” Harris said.
Lind said, “No action was taken regarding the situation you have charged us with.”
Harris said, “Deliberation to take action is a violation.”
Lind said he was confused on the issue and “action” needed to be more clearly defined. Harris said that the four council members were making a collective decision and that was a violation.
“You were all saying the same thing,” Mayor Kent Williams added.
This dialogue led to a heated exchange between Hegeman and Harris, with Hegeman saying Harris should be representing each council member and not taking legal action against them, and Harris saying again that the news doesn’t represent each individual on the council.
The meeting closed with council members saying they were confused and needed more clarification on the subject of sequential communication and definition of an action.
This story was published on April 9, 2025.