Comments on: Citizen charges council with Open Meetings Law Violation

By: denise barnhart

denise barnhart — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 14:23:18 +0000

Without exception I’ve always seem logic in Mike G’s legal opinions. But this one, I think he kind of ‘blew it’. A group of council members discussing an issue that (1) they introduced to change city ordinances and (2) is up for public vote? I could see Pud not remembering who is on the council and so maybe a wrist-slap. An apology and ‘I won’t do it again’ sort of thing.

By: Lin Ennis

Lin Ennis — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:32:06 +0000

QUESTION: If four councilors appear at a meeting or party without public notice where 13 other people also appear, would that be an open-meeting violation, even if they didn’t talk about a pending issue?

QUESTION: If four councilors conduct a conference call to plan ways to stack the deck in their favor in an upcoming public vote, would that violate open meeting laws?

QUESTION: If one councilor emails three other councilors – asking for dialogue and interaction – to achieve a predetermined public vote outcome, and offers to personally pickup and deliver their notarized arguments (marketing materials), does that constitute a discussion and possible open meeting law violation intended to directly influence something that will affect the public body for the foreseeable future? If not, how is this different from fire board members offside interviewing possible firechiefs?

QUESTIONS: If a councilor, former mayor, and recent voter to place Frey on the Council *forgets* Frey is on the Council, does that mean open meeting laws do not apply?

Goimaric may be able to nitpick the law, but Colquitt’s intention was obvious: to get the ‘voting bloc’ and former city officials to overwhelmingly speak in favor of a pet proposition overturning something the public voted on quite recently and has not grown tired of.

If he wants to split hairs and the Council lets him, then my respect for each of these person involved sinks to a new low. After all, though the matters are not equal, we all know OJ was guilty, regardless of the prowess of his legal team!

By: Lin Ennis

Lin Ennis — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:30:50 +0000

QUESTION: Of four councilors conduct a conference calls to plan ways to stack the deck in their favor in an upcoming public vote, would that violate open meeting laws?

QUESTION: If one councilor emails three other councilors – asking for dialogue and interaction – to achieve a predetermined public vote outcome, and offers to personally pickup and deliver their notarized arguments (marketing materials), does that constitute a discussion an possible open meeting law violation intended to directly influence something that will affect the public body for the foreseeable future? If not, how is this different from fire board members offside interviewing possible firechiefs?

QUESTIONS: If a councilor, former mayor, and recent voter to place Frey on the Council *forgets* Frey is on the Council, does that mean open meeting laws do not apply?

By: Terry Nash

Terry Nash — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 18:08:45 +0000

Mr. Goimarac is wrong as to his last statements “Such an issue could never forseeably come before the City Council, because the City cannot take a position on election issues.”

What if Proposition 400 voting ended in a tie and what if Mayor Adams were to step down? I rest my case.

Terry Nash
Sedona AZ