Laserfiche WebLink
decision by an elected official; <br />(II) Any final version of a fiscal or performance audit <br />report or similar document the purpose of which is to <br />investigate, track, or account for the operation or <br />management of a public entity or the expenditure of <br />public money, together with the final version of any <br />supporting material attached to such final report or <br />document; <br />(III) Any final accounting or final financial record or <br />report; <br />(IV) Any materials that would otherwise constitute work <br />product if such materials are produced and distributed to <br />the members of a public body for their use or <br />consideration in a public meeting or cited and identified <br />in the text of the final version of a document that <br />expresses a decision by an elected official. <br />C.R.S. § 24 -72 -202 (6.5)( c). Additionally, the statute states that <br />"`work product' also does not include any final version of a document <br />prepared or assembled for an elected official that consists solely of <br />factual information compiled from public sources. The final version of <br />such a document shall be a public record." C.R.S. § 24 -72 -202 <br />(6.5)(d)(I). <br />b) Without a demonstrable connection to the exercise of functions <br />required or authorized by law or administrative rule and does not <br />involve the receipt or expenditure of public funds: <br />To be a "public record" as defined by subsection (6)(a)(II), an <br />e -mail message must be for use in the performance of public <br />functions or involve the receipt of public funds. If e -mails are <br />merely personal correspondences they are not considered to be <br />public records open to inspection. The Colorado Supreme <br />Court, in applying the Open Records Act held that a message <br />sent in furtherance of a personal relationship does not fall within <br />the definition of a public record and the fact that a public <br />employee or public official sent or received a message while <br />compensated by public funds or using publicly owned computer <br />equipment is insufficient to make the message a "public record ". <br />Denver Publ'g Co. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 121 P.3d 190 <br />(Colo. 2005). <br />However, just because an e -mail contains correspondence of a <br />personal nature does not mean it is shielded from public <br />inspection if it also discusses the performance of a "public <br />Page 20 of 26 <br />