SAN LUIS VALLEY — Some Valley counties are doing better than others when it comes to following Colorado Revised Statutes regarding Open Meeting laws during the COVID crisis, with Alamosa and Saguache counties seeming to lag behind.
Under TITLE 24 - ARTICLE 6 - Colorado Sunshine Law 24-6-402. Meetings - open to public – definitions: (2) (a) All meetings of two or more members of any state public body at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.
(b) All meetings of a quorum or three or more members of any local public body, whichever is fewer, at which any public business is discussed or at which any formal action may be taken are declared to be public meetings open to the public at all times.
(c) Any meetings at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation, or formal action occurs or at which a majority or quorum of the body is in attendance, or is expected to be in attendance, shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public.
Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition Executive Director Jeffrey Roberts laid down guidelines to follow for holding virtual meetings and making other provisions in an article published on the CFOIC website March 16.
“A meeting of a public body convened “by telephone” or “electronically’ – using Zoom, for instance – is still a “meeting” under what’s commonly known as the Sunshine Law. If a majority or quorum of the body attends, or is expected to attend, it can be held only after “full and timely” notice to the public, which can include a posting on a website.
“And any electronic or phone meetings must be open to the public, meaning there has to be a way for community members to watch or listen in. Some cities, charters or ordinance provisions, however, may not allow councils to conduct virtual meetings.
“The open meetings law “expressly contemplates that a meeting may be conducted electronically, without giving any precise indication of how the public must be allowed to participate in the meeting,” wrote David Broadwell, general counsel for the Colorado Municipal League, in an email to the Colorado Freedom of information Coalition.
“There seems to be a consensus that the trick will be finding a medium that allows the public to ‘attend’ and/or participate in the meeting,” Broadwell said. “Since we are in uncharted waters here, nobody has reached any definite conclusion as to how the meeting logistics can and will work if anybody actually attempts to do this.”
Roberts continues: “The Boulder City Council Tuesday will take up an emergency ordinance that would give councilors, as well as advisory board and commission members, the option to participate in meetings remotely, by phone or via the internet. According to the Daily Camera, the ordinance also would let public bodies in Boulder limit inperson public attendance, provided the city offers a way for community members to also participate remotely. The city, which streams council meetings on its website, plans to make a call-in number available for public comment at this week’s meeting.
“In Aspen, a hot spot for the coronavirus, the City Council adopted a resolution Friday that lets the city manager make rules and regulations “for the conduct of and attendance at City Council meetings through electronic means” during a disaster emergency. “Whether those meetings will be televised or conducted via some type of audio system was not determined,” the Aspen Daily News reported.
“School boards may adopt policies allowing members to attend meetings electronically, but such policies “must ensure that a meeting at which one or more board members participate electronically is open to the public.”
“If they use this provision, school boards are required to have “technology in place that will ensure that members of the public can hear the comments made by a board member who attends the meeting electronically and that the board member can hear comments made by the public.”
See https://coloradofoic.org/coronavirus-and-colorados-sunshine-law/for the complete article.

Valley county policies
Rio Grande and Mineral counties have set up teleconferencing and video access of their regular and emergency commissioner meetings via Zoom. There are no Conejos County Commissioner meeting agendas available on the county website past March 5. Costilla County held a special meeting March 23 that was accessible to the public by telephone.
Alamosa County has issued an emergency declaration setting up guidelines for operation during the COVID crisis for remote emergency meetings which can be held “even in the event that proper public notification is not attainable.” Alamosa County cites a state statute allowing the board to call an emergency meeting as long as it has adopted procedures for doing so, something commissioners did March 11.
This move by Alamosa County seems to be similar to the approach taken by the town of Aspen which Roberts describes above, in that it does not detail whether or not the meetings will include public participation. For as Roberts notes, “There has to be a way for community members to watch or listen in.” Any type of public meeting, however, is to be noticed 24 hours ahead of time according to the open meetings law. No exceptions are made for emergencies.
The county attorney or county administrator will call the meetings, which will be held in person, by telephone or electronically. When held in person or by telephone, an audio recording of the meeting is to be made or minutes taken by a clerk or deputy. Electronically held meetings must be made available to the clerk to the board or deputy on all communications so that minutes may be made.
The declaration issued for the emergency meetings notes that “Email between elected officials to discuss pending legislation or public business is open to the public.”
Saguache County commissioners meetings will be open to the public, according to the county website, “But due to the order issued by Gov. Polis and the Saguache County Public Health Department with the restriction of limiting gatherings to no more than 10 people, no more than three members of the public may attend at any one time.  
“Recordings of the meeting will be available from the Saguache County Clerk and Recorder. The BoCC at this time would still like to reserve the right for public comment.  Both call in and email options will be made available during this time.” 
Those wishing to comment can email Wendi Maez at [email protected], or call 719-655-2554. While this is a partial solution, it does not allow for active public participation and does not seem to satisfy CFOIC standards. For years the county has been asked to follow the lead of other rural counties who livestream their meetings. This because so many residents live in remote areas and especially during the winter months cannot make it to commissioner meetings.
The town of Saguache will host meetings on Zoom or Facebook Live and will accept public comment, Town Clerk Iris Garcia said Monday. Up to 10 members also will be allowed to attend the town hall meeting in person.
Town Administrator Brian Lujan said the town of Center has postponed its March 24 meeting until April. No provisions for meetings are posted on the Town of Moffat site. The next town of Crestone meeting is not scheduled until April 13.