Boulder Valley school board members vowed Tuesday to use e-mail for disseminating information — not deliberating issues — after an attorney briefed the group on Colorado’s open meetings and records laws.

Two Louisville residents earlier this year lodged a formal complaint with the school board alleging that members were discussing public issues in private e-mail conversations after uncovering board member correspondence involving back-and-forth debate on demolition at Louisville Middle School.

At the time the e-mails were made public, board members said they didn’t know electronic communication among board members about issues of public interest was prohibited.

Board members requested a work session to better educate themselves on the law, and Tuesday, attorney Richard Bump advised the board that it’s better to be safe than sorry when it comes to e-mail communication.

“If you feel strongly about an issue coming before the board, you can distribute information to the board, but with the expectation that there’s not going to be a back-and-forth there,” he said. “Deliberation is my caution.”

According to Colorado sunshine laws, meetings of a quorum or three or more members of a local public body at which public business is discussed are “public meetings open to the public at all times.”

The law defines a school board as a “local public body” and electronic discussions as “meetings.”

Bump said the board legally must notify the public if four or more members will be discussing issues of public interest together. While meetings of three or more board members must be public, a notice doesn’t have to be posted.

“But we know that in the circumstance where three or more members are discussing something in e-mail, there is no way the public could partake,” Bump said.

Board members asked if it would be OK for them to meet, for instance, for coffee at a local Starbucks. Bump said if they do, it should be for pleasure, not business.

“You can have coffee with colleagues, but it should be social in nature and not about issues or decision making,” he said. “Even if you’re in public, it’s not the case where the public can listen in.”

Board member Jim Reed, who was elected last fall and was involved in the controversial e-mail discussions, suggested Tuesday that the district start a new board member orientation to make sure everyone is schooled on the legal requirements.

“This was very helpful for me,” Reed said of the Tuesday work session.

Board members said that, in the past, they’ve used e-mail to raise questions about issues they might consider putting on the agenda.

“We have used e-mail in the past not in formulating policy but vetting ideas,” said board member Jean Paxton. “Clearly what you’re saying is that that’s too close to the line.”

She asked how board members can express their feelings on issues to one another over e-mail without breaking the law.

“Board meetings aren’t designed for that kind of discussion,” Paxton said.

Board President Helayne Jones disagreed.

“In my mind, if you are sending an e-mail out telling people what you’re feeling on an issue, you are trying to get people to see it your way, and that feels like deliberation,” she said. “If you’re sending an e-mail, that’s deliberation, and that should occur in a meeting.

“I don’t agree that our agenda limits that discussion,” Jones said.

She suggested the board change the way it views meetings and the time allowed board members to discuss issues not on the agenda.

District officials said there are some instances when issues of board interest arise too quickly and are too urgent to wait to discuss until the next meeting.

In that case, board members agreed, they should either call a special meeting or use the superintendent as a go-to person to determine an appropriate response.

“If it’s information dissemination, it’s different than deliberation,” Jones said. “Use that as a personal litmus test.”

John Leary, a former Louisville councilman and one of the residents who blew the whistle on the board e-mail discussion regarding Louisville Middle School, said he hopes the district’s intent is to meet the spirit of the law, not just the letter.

“Sometimes it requires going beyond complying with the law to properly serve the public interest,” Leary said.