At the June 20, 2024, Kaysville City Council meeting, City Attorney Nic Mills provided the City Council with a summary of the Legal Department. He said Kaysville City is responsible for prosecuting all Class B and C Misdemeanors and Infractions that occur in Kaysville City. The Legal Department receives its cases from the Kaysville Police Department, Davis County Sheriff’s Office, Utah Highway Patrol, Davis County Animal Control, and various other local law enforcement agencies. 

Kaysville City prosecutes a robust case load: in 2017, the city prosecuted 2,912 cases and in 2023, the Legal Department prosecuted 3,836 cases. These new filings are in addition to ongoing cases that the city monitors to ensure that probation is being complied with. In 2023, the city conducted 12 trials; the city prevailed in 10 of the trials. The city currently has two civil lawsuits that are pending. In addition, the Attorney’s office successfully negotiated and resolved several claims before lawsuits were filed.

The City Attorney’s office also consults with and provides support to various departments. The Attorney’s office wrote 14 ordinances or resolutions that the council considered last year. In addition, the office drafted or reviewed numerous contracts, agreements, and memorandums of understanding. The office also consulted on numerous personnel decisions from a variety of departments. The City Attorney fields “after-hours” calls to advise police officers on a variety of search and seizure issues.

Mills provided the required annual training for the Open and Public Meetings Act. He emphasized that this training is mandated by the State Legislature to ensure that public bodies conduct their business transparently. He summarized the key principles of the Act, stressing that public action and deliberations must be conducted openly to maintain public trust. He clarified what constitutes a meeting under the Act, explaining that a meeting involves a quorum of the council discussing or acting upon matters within their jurisdiction. However, casual social gatherings or training sessions, such as those held by the League of Cities and Towns, do not qualify as meetings under the Act. 

Mills recounted a relevant instance where city council members’ email interactions were scrutinized to determine if they constituted a meeting. He clarified that while disseminating information via email is permissible, engaging in dialogue or decision-making through electronic communication violates the Act. He stressed that only authorized persons, such as the mayor or council, can convene a meeting. The Act allows meetings to be closed to the public for specific reasons, such as discussing property transactions, security issues, or personnel matters. These reasons are explicitly defined, and no other justifications are permitted for closing a meeting. Mills concluded by noting that electronic communications could be used to hold public meetings, provided they comply with the Act's requirements.