SedonaEye.com columnist Eddie Maddock
Sedona AZ (February 9, 2015) – The Open Meeting Law, a work in progress or regress?
The following was added at the conclusion of a recent e-mail response from a member of the Sedona City Council:
“City of Sedona
102 Roadrunner Dr.
Sedona AZ 86336
Direct Contact: (Omitted)
This e-mail, if received by members of the City Council is intended solely for the purpose of disseminating factual information and is not intended to propose any legal action. In order to comply with the State’s Open Meeting Law, please do not reply to this e-mail or engage in a discussion of it outside of a legally noticed meeting with other members of the City Council.” (end)
Seemingly it sends a message that maybe our city has specific reasons to notify the public of this policy and or it serves as an expression of their concern and acceptance to comply with the State Open Meeting Law.
Based on this curious turn of events, the following information is a brief accounting of how our Open Meeting Law came to pass.
Excerpts from Arizona’s Open Meeting Law:
History of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law. All fifty states have enacted some type of legislation providing the public with a statutory right to openness in government. In addition, the United States Congress in 1976 enacted the Federal Open Meeting Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552b. Arizona’s Open Meeting Law was first adopted in 1962 and has been amended several times since its enactment.
7.5.2 Circumvention of the Open Meeting Law. Discussions and deliberations between less than a majority of the members of a governing body, or other devices, when used to circumvent the purposes of the Open Meeting Law violate that law. Public officials may not circumvent public discussion by splintering the quorum and having separate or serial discussions with a majority of the public body members. Splintering the quorum can be done by meeting in person, by telephone, electronically, or through other means to discuss a topic that is or may be presented to the public body for a decision. Public officials should refrain from any activities that may undermine public confidence in the public decision making process established in the Open Meeting Law, including actions that may appear to remove discussions and decisions from public view.
For example, Board members cannot use email to circumvent the Open Meeting Law requirements. See Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I05-004 at 2. “[E]ven if communications on a particular subject between members of a public body do not take place at the same time or place, the communications can nonetheless constitute a ‘meeting.’” See Del Papa v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. and Cmty. Coll. Sys. Of Nev., 114 Nev. 388, 393, 956 P.2d 770, 774 (1998) (rejecting the argument that a meeting did not occur because the board members were not together at the same time and place.) Additionally, “[w]hen members of the public body are parties to an exchange of e-mail communications that involve discussions, deliberations, or taking legal action by a quorum of the public body concerning a matter that may foreseeably come before the public body for action, the communications constitute a meeting through technical devices under the [Open Meeting Law].” See Ariz. Att’y Gen. Op. I05-004 at 1. This may true (sic) even if none of the members of the public body respond to the email. Id. at 2-3. If the one-way communication proposes legal action, then it would violate the Open Meeting Law. Id. However, other one-way communications, with no further exchanges, are not per se violations, and further examination of the facts and circumstances is necessary to determine if there is a violation. Id. at 3.
OVERVIEW: It is the public policy of this state that meetings of public bodies be conducted openly and that notices and agendas be provided for such meetings which contain such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided. Accordingly, Arizona’s Open Meeting Law must be construed in favor of open and public meetings.
Summarized this means Meeting Notices, Agendas, and Minutes of meeting are to be made public and laws have been enacted throughout the country “in response to mounting public concerns over informal, undisclosed meetings held by local elected officials. City councils, county boards, and other local government bodies were avoiding public scrutiny by holding secret ‘workshops’ and ‘study sessions’.” Source: Ralph M. Brown Act, 1953
Executive Sessions, as have been identified as discussions of privileged/confidential information due to legal technicality, have been deemed acceptable.
And so, after many, many years of genuine attempts to create trust among the masses, what do we have today in Arizona?
Republican Sen. Sylvia Allen of Snowflake introduced a bill which, if approved, will allow city councils, school boards, and other leaders to talk in secret. She seems to think it will improve government if elected officials are able to talk to each other privately before public meetings begin. Isn’t that what created the need for an Open Meeting Law in the first place?
And why would a bill relaxing open meetings mandate be a good thing? If private talks are allowed, doesn’t that translate to decisions being made behind closed doors? Why, then, even bother to have public meetings for the purposing of voting?
Shouldn’t conscientious elected officials be striving to alleviate mistrust, skepticism, and doubt among the ever declining number of voters? We are already aware that the public is not hearing everything, which is part of the problem.
If anything, consideration might be better directed toward reassuring the voting public that closed door, back room deals are unacceptable.
Transparency should prevail. Encouraging activities contrary to that should be deemed unacceptable if public trust is to be restored and sustained.
The Open Meeting Law: A work in progress or regress?
For the best Arizona news and views, read www.SedonaEye.com daily!
@City Business
I agree, why would any us stay????
You don’t speak for me, I happen to like Sedona just the way it is. If YOU feel the way you do, PLEASE LEAVE! and don’t let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.
BTW, you may want to consider taking DJV and EJM with you because obviously they’re not happy either.
Mary S.
You said,” Most of their members as has been pointed out time and time again do not collect Sedona city taxes”.
The Visitor bed tax, not sales tax supplies ALL monies paid to or through the chamber that includes all advertising and the city share of the up town visitor center.
What I am saying is “the hotels guests” are paying for all advertising and by state law the new bed tax money can not be used for other non visitor uses.
I keep seeing ” Pay to Play” regarding the chamber, so yes if you are not a chamber member you are in fact playing with out paying. By the way the new % of the city income now come to 65% to 72% from sale and bed tax,we blew past the old 50% number everyone was using…. seem the advertising is working.
http://www.sedonaaz.gov/Sedonacms/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=25360
ss
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
My, oh my, what a wonderful day
Plenty of sunshine headin’ my way
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
@Sedona City Business @Just Sayin’ Come on over. I have the best of both worlds. I live in the city limits but my business in the village. Come on over DJV and EJM We love everyone! Happy here!
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
My, oh my, what a wonderful day
Plenty of sunshine headin’ my way
Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay
Yes, @Steve Segner. I’m aware that a percentage of a discretionary tax by law must benefit those paying it. And in a way I appreciate you helping to clarify my point.
It is only city lodging businesses that collect the bed taxes to which you refer. Those lodging facilities outside city limits do not contribute and yet they benefit from Chamber referrals if they are members. Whereas city limit based lodging will not get referrals unless they are forced to be members of the Chamber. The same with other city based businesses. How fair is that?
The professional hired to speak at the council meeting about economic development, when asked about the C of C, responded as posted under another article on this web site, stressed it was C of C responsibility to represent and work with their membership and indicated “What I’m used to is the Chamber of Commerce will have members from their local businesses. . . but you might have members from Flagstaff, Cottonwood, Prescott or other places . . . and their (C of C) is to help market and benefit their (respective) members.”
In other words, Flagstaff, Cottonwood, Prescott etc. market their own businesses and do not promote regional competition or businesses in other cities or areas with taxes collected by their in-city businesses. Very different than what the previous city council set in motion here in Sedona.
Maybe with four new members now seated and based on the advice from a professional they will pay attention and correct a very bad mistake that should never have happened in the first place. If they don’t then it will have been another wasted city expense for having hired the professional to give sage advice.
As for the visitors center itself, it is not identified as a Sedona City Visitor’s Center as are the ones in Flagstaff, Prescott, and Cottonwood. And the location itself may serve the Chamber OK but judging from the traffic backup going into uptown this past weekend, it’s doubtful that people could do little else but steam, cuss, and display anger at being unable to find a place to park let alone seek out information from a specific place.
No only that but the Chamber managed to attempt to do away with all other locations with “Visitor Information” signs. Greedy, greedy, greedy. (Although I see many of the signs still remain and I say good for them.)
How much of the percentage of “new” taxes might possibly be represented by collection of back taxes? And is the breakdown from sales tax authentic? And since when in the final tally have taxes been segregated anyway? They all end up in the same coffers. Many questions, Mr. Segner, but never fear. You hang your hat on your frequently quoted phrase: “Trust us.” So guess you have it in the bag. Not to worry about or begrudge those of us for expressing concerns for inadequate accounting of return on investment for it appears our voices fall on deaf ears where it counts.
(And I’m NOT Sharlett whoever he/she is)
If Sedona’s tax base has increased substantially could the upturn in national economy have anything to do with it? How about the prices of gas dropping to the lowest in years (although it’s slightly on the rise again)? Also the amazing mild weather we’re experiencing while the northeast remains in a deep freeze?
Was it advertising by the Chamber that brought the Super Bowl to Arizona?
Of course, if the bed tax rebate allotted to the chamber of commerce for destination marketing influenced any of the above phenomenal events, then perhaps they should pack up and relocate to Washington DC, collect even a higher rebate than $1.3 million, and set the national government on the right path once and for all.
If this City Council buys the sales pitch they will be given in the near future, then maybe the Chamber could also make a profit selling new refrigerators or air conditioners to the East Coast population.
HOORAY! Thanks to all the truth tellers on Sedona Eye! Keep it rolling, your fan club is growing.
Impressive information on Sedona Eye!
I’m not sure where to ask this, but someplace there was a comment about how many votes approved the Community Plan as being, I believe, around 1500. To my recollection there were more folks than that who opted out of Smart Meters. Will someone please confirm whether I’m correct or not?
My purpose in bringing this up is because during the council meeting where they were discussing priorities I believe it was Jon Thompson who brought up Smart Meters and he was soundly put in his place with really quite disrespectful remarks from fellow council members. It seems they didn’t want to hear any more about Smart Meters and were far more interested in obliging the scant 1500 people (out of a population of 10,000) that approved the Community Plan.
Just another point to ponder about the willingness of elected officials to ignore those that disagree with what is important to them.
By the way, thank you Jon Thompson for your attempt to keep the Smart Meter issue alive as well as your current participation with Smart Meter Awareness.
Will take a chance and jump in here thanks to those who have attempted to silence Sharlette and others.
Why is it the city council is so prudent to follow the letter of the law about returning a benefit to the lodging council via chamber of commerce ad contract when on the other hand they completely ignore the ”state statute” spelling out in detail the responsibility of an incorporated city or town to provide adequate drainage and roads/streets? (That “statute” was also provided as a comment on this web site.)
To think that once again, in addition to our properties that have been subjected to flooding because of poor engineering by City of Sedona in developing new subdivisions, they snub their noses at places like the nationally designated historic Hummingbird House, which I believe did file a law suit against the city. (if not I hope they do)
And just how does the City of Sedona get away with that? Any answers from City Attorney Mike Goimarac? (referencing nature of article, Az. Open Meeting Law)