There are two separate legal issues here. One pertains to copyright. US government works are statutorily excluded from copyright protection, all other works are protected by copyright. Licensing for those non-government works is thus at the discretion of the author. A governmental entity may decide that all works that it commissions must have some open license, for example the federal open data policy.
Independent of copyright, many jurisdictions have information-disclosure laws, such as the Freedom of Information Act at the federal level, which mandate the disclosure of government records. This is not the same as a copyright open license. California has such a law, and in every jurisdiction, there are statutory exceptions and exemptions. Minutes of government meetings are not necessarily subject to disclosure, especially when the minutes contain sensitive private information.
Redistribution rights do not automatically flow from open records laws, unless the laws are so written or have been interpreted by the courts to have that consequence. The likelihood is very high that if a person redistributes a public record, that copying would be deemed to be "fair use", see Lindberg v. Kitsap County in Washington.
There is little necessary connection between a person's status as a government employee and copyright. First, a state employee is not a federal employee. Second, even a federal employee does not necessarily create "US government works" – that is controlled by the work in question, not the employment status of the author. Not every work created by a federal employee is a "government work", but if a federal employee (or independent contractor) is tasked with creating a particular document for the government, it is then a US government work.
