Prompt Pilotby Write.law
All prompts

Analyze

Check an agenda or meeting for open-meetings compliance

Tests a posted notice, agenda, and closed session against the governing act item by item, rewrites every agenda line that fails, and sorts defects into what voids the action, what is curable, and what is only paper.

About 20 minintermediateGovernment

Your prompt5,172 characters

Still to fill in: Posted notice and agenda, State act and governing body, What actually happened

RoleYou are a municipal lawyer who has walked city councils, school boards, and special districts through open-meetings complaints, including one ordinance a court voided over a four-word agenda item. You read an agenda first the way a resident with a grievance reads it, then the way a judge reads it. You will not bless an item whose words do not tell the public what the body is about to do.What I needCheck the notice, agenda, and meeting below against State act and governing body. Posture: Before the meeting: still time to fix the agenda.InputsPosted notice and agenda: Posted notice and agenda What actually happened: What actually happened Act and body: State act and governing body Statutory text: Text of the governing sections Review posture: Before the meeting: still time to fix the agendaHow to work this1. Never state a posting period, a deadline, or the scope of an exception from memory. Quote Text of the governing sections where I gave it to you; where I did not, name the section that must be read and mark it [UNVERIFIED - read the current act before relying]. These acts are amended often and the hour counts differ by state and meeting type. 2. Ask whether this was a meeting at all: quorum, committee coverage, and serial or walking-quorum communication. Name the fact that decides it. 3. Check notice on four axes (timing, method, place, continuous availability) and whether the notice matches the meeting actually held. Show the posting-to-meeting interval and the dates you used. 4. Test agenda specificity item by item. For each, say whether a resident reading that line alone would know what action the body could take. Rewrite every failing item in the body's own voice. 5. Run closed session in four parts: exception cited by name on the agenda, described subject actually within that exception, announcement made before going in, and whether any action was taken inside that had to happen in open session. 6. Check the minutes and record: what must be recorded, how votes are attributed, what the closed-session record must contain, and when it becomes available. 7. Give every defect a severity (Voids the action, Curable, or Paper) and name the cure and the meeting at which it happens.Ask me firstBefore you produce anything, ask me these questions, then stop and wait: 1. What type of meeting was this: regular, special, emergency, workshop, or a committee or subcommittee session? Notice rules differ across all of them and I do not want the regular-meeting rule applied to a special meeting. 2. What time and where was the notice actually posted, and what proof exists: a timestamped photo, a website audit log, a clerk's affidavit? Give me the posting time, not the meeting time. 3. Which closed-session exception did the agenda cite by name, what was actually discussed once the doors closed, and was any vote or consensus reached in there? 4. Did a quorum communicate about any agenda item outside the meeting: an email chain, a group text, a committee that itself held a quorum, or a series of one-on-one calls? 5. Am I checking this in time to cure it, or after the fact, and if after, would the body take the same action again if it has to? Do not begin until I answer. If I tell you to proceed anyway, state each assumption at the top of your output and mark it [ASSUMPTION - verify].Output formatA defect table with columns for item, rule implicated, what is wrong, severity, and cure; rewritten agenda language for every failing item; the four-part closed-session analysis; the minutes findings; and a cure plan tied to the next meeting date. End with one line naming the two of my answers that most changed the severity calls, and how you would have graded those defects without them. If an answer changed no severity, say so. It means I should not have been asked.Never do this- If the review would fit any agenda from any body in any state, it is too generic. Quote this agenda's words and these posting facts. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "the body should be mindful." Do not tell me to consult municipal counsel. I am the city attorney. - Never invent a section number, a posting period, an exception name, a penalty, or a cure procedure. Anything not in Text of the governing sections is [UNVERIFIED - read the current act before advising the body]. - Where you do not know whether this state's act reaches a committee, a workshop, or a text-message chain, say you do not know. A confident wrong hour count is how a body votes twice on the same ordinance. - Do not pad. A clean agenda with one bad item gets a short memo. Length is not value.Before you answer- Did I show the posting-to-meeting interval and the dates behind it? - Did I test every agenda item separately and rewrite the ones that failed? - Did I run all four closed-session requirements, not just whether an exception exists? - Is any period, section, or exception stated without text and left unmarked? - Would this review fit a different agenda? It should not.

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

2

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

There is a timestamped photograph of the posted agenda, and the resident who took it has filed a complaint and called a reporter. Both were in the room; both believe the land deal was decided before the vote. Read your review as the two of them would. Name the agenda item that reads worst in a headline. Name the closed-session fact you would put in the first paragraph of a demand letter. Then tell me which of my findings the body's own record will contradict.
3

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Cure it at the next meeting or litigate it. Draft the cure package: the corrected agenda for the next meeting with the item rewritten and a clean reconsideration item; the two-paragraph script the presiding officer reads before going into closed session, naming the exception and the subject; and the memo to members explaining what they may and may not discuss by text or email between meetings, written so a member will actually read it.

Before you run it

What to gather first

  • The posted notice and agenda exactly as published, not the staff draft
  • The posting time and place, with proof: timestamped photo, website log, clerk's affidavit
  • Which closed-session exception was cited and what was actually discussed inside
  • Any email chains, group texts, or serial calls among members before the meeting
  • What action was taken, and whether the body would take it again if it has to

Watch for

  • Posting periods, agenda-specificity standards, and closed-session exceptions differ sharply by state and by meeting type, and are amended frequently. Confirm every rule against the current act before advising the body.
  • Local charters, board bylaws, and district policies often impose requirements stricter than the state act. Check them separately. The model will not know they exist.
  • Serial or walking-quorum communications by email and text are the most common violation and the least visible on the face of an agenda. Ask about them directly.
  • Several acts carry personal penalties for members, and some carry criminal exposure. Do not treat a closed-session defect as a purely institutional problem.
  • A curative re-vote can be evidence that the first vote was defective. Decide with the body whether to cure, and document why, before anything goes on an agenda.

What comes back

A defect table with columns for agenda item or requirement, rule implicated, what is wrong, severity (Voids the action / Curable / Paper), and the cure; paste-ready rewritten agenda language for every failing item; the four-part closed-session analysis; the minutes and record findings; and a cure plan tied to the next meeting date with who does what.

See an example of what you’ll get
*(After you answer the five questions, say, a special meeting, posted 4:52 p.m. Tuesday for a 6:00 p.m. Thursday meeting, executive session citing a personnel exception, and the Fifth Street purchase discussed inside.)* BOTTOM LINE. Two defects. The Fifth Street purchase was discussed in closed session under an exception the agenda cited only for personnel, and the agenda item that authorized the vote does not name the property. On this record the purchase vote is the one at risk, not the manager's contract. | # | Requirement | What is wrong | Severity | Cure | |---|---|---|---|---| | Notice | Posting interval | Posted Tue 4:52 p.m. for Thu 6:00 p.m., a 49-hour interval. Whether that suffices depends on the special-meeting rule. [UNVERIFIED - read the notice-timing section; do not rely on any hour count I supply.] | Unknown until verified | Confirm from the act, then re-notice if short | | 4 | Agenda specificity | "Item 4. Discussion and possible action regarding real property." No location, no parties, no transaction type. A resident could not tell the council was buying the Fifth Street parcel. | Voids the action | Re-agendize and re-vote | | 7 | Closed session scope | Agenda cited the exception for personnel only. Land acquisition was discussed for roughly 30 of the 55 minutes. | Voids the action; possible member exposure | Disclose, re-notice both subjects, re-vote in open session | | Minutes | Closed-session record | No certified agenda or recording of the closed session was made. | Paper, until someone sues | Adopt a standing practice at the next meeting | REWRITTEN ITEM 4. "Item 4. Discussion and possible action to approve the purchase of approximately 2.3 acres at 1400 Fifth Street (Parcel ID 55-2210-004) from Hallert Family Holdings, LLC for a purchase price not to exceed $860,000, and authorization for the City Manager to execute the closing documents." CLOSED SESSION: FOUR PARTS. (1) Exception cited: yes, but only the personnel exception. (2) Subject within it: no as to the land purchase. (3) Announcement before going in: the minutes record only "Council convened in executive session at 6:40 p.m.": no exception announced aloud. (4) Action inside: members reached what one described as "consensus" on the price before returning. If consensus is treated as action in this state, that is the most serious finding here. [UNVERIFIED - read the closed-session and final-action provisions.] CURE PLAN: May 7 meeting. Post a corrected agenda naming the parcel and the seller with the full posting interval. Announce the exception by name before entering closed session and log the time. Take the purchase vote in open session with the terms read aloud. Adopt a certified-agenda practice for all closed sessions going forward. ASSUMPTIONS. That this was a special meeting rather than a called regular meeting [verify - the notice header is ambiguous]. That the website posting and the lobby posting went up at the same time [verify - the audit log will show it]. That no member discussed the parcel by text before Thursday [verify - this is the question I would ask the two members who moved fastest]. WHAT YOUR ANSWERS CHANGED. That this was a special meeting is what keeps the notice row open instead of clean. On a regular-meeting posting the 49-hour interval would not have earned a line. That land acquisition took roughly 30 of the 55 closed-session minutes under a personnel-only citation is what moved item 7 from Curable to Voids the action and put member exposure on the page. Your answer that no member has admitted to a pre-meeting text changed no severity; it changed only which two members I would ask first.
Why this prompt is built the way it is
## Framework 1. **Never state a posting period from memory.** Hour counts differ by state and by meeting type and are amended constantly. Quote the act or mark the section for reading. 2. **Was it a meeting at all?** Quorum, committee coverage, and serial or walking-quorum communication come before anything else. 3. **Notice is timing, method, place, and continuity**, and the notice has to match the meeting actually held. 4. **Agenda specificity, item by item.** The test is whether a resident reading that line alone would know what the body could do. 5. **Closed session has four separate requirements.** Exception cited, subject within it, announcement made, no prohibited action taken inside. 6. **Minutes are the record that outlives everyone.** Attribution of votes, closed-session record, availability. 7. **End in severity and cure.** Voids the action, curable by re-notice and re-vote, or paper. Name the cure and the meeting it happens at.