• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.57
• /
• pp.35-73
• /
• 2018

This study aims to elucidate the implications for 20 years of the establishment of the information disclosure law by analyzing contents of the public regulations of 50 states of the United States. For the purpose, it looks at the general outline of the open meetings law of the 50 states, including the requirements and procedure of the advance notification of the meeting, and the protest procedure and penalties for the violation of the law. As a result of analysis, under the law, public meetings should announce their schedule and agenda in advance, and minutes of meetings and recording of meetings should be accessible to citizens. Furthermore, a person who violates the law for opening meetings could be fined or imprisoned. The implications for the establishment of the Open Meetings Act in Korea are as follows: First, the open meeting system starts with the appropriate period and method of advance notice of meeting holding. Second, the substantive contents of the advance notification guarantee the effectiveness of the meeting disclosure system. Third, the method and subject of advance notification should be as wide and diverse as possible. Fourth, all decisions of the meeting that violate the law are null and void. Fifth, a system should be set up so that any citizen could easily raise objections to the violation of the law. Sixth, the person who violates the law should be held responsible. Lastly, citizen access to minutes, recordings as well as comprehensive meeting minutes writing including attendees, agendas, and ballots should be guaranteed.

• The Korean Journal of Archival Studies
• /
• no.55
• /
• pp.307-334
• /
• 2018

This study analyzes the status of the designated administrative meetings of the central administrative agencies, including the number of meetings, the presence of written minutes, and the form of minutes. The implications based on the analysis are as follows. First, there were meetings that were not held, and written meetings were held. The standards for determining the designated meetings should be established. Second, when only a written meeting was held, the minutes were not made because these were not written separately. A written meeting can be held, if it is necessary. However, there is still a need to keep a detailed record similar to minutes in such cases. Third, among the minute types, a written record of the points of the meeting is preferred. Even if the meeting is closed for proper reasons, making a transcript and a record in addition to writing the points must be settled. Finally, specific standards for the procedures and reasons why meetings and minutes should be closed should be established. It is necessary to change the paradigm from the viewpoint of production and management to the viewpoint of disclosure and sharing through the improvement of standards and procedures related to designated meetings and designated meeting minutes.