 |
| Dolores Connor |
Councilor Connor wanted to insure that the conduct of the Council would not violate the provisions of this law nor give the perceptions that the Council was not in compliance with it. Furthermore she believes that the Council should be focused on conducting the public business and not be distracted by electronic devices or conducting internet research during Council sessions. These concerns were all supported by the AG’s Office.
A Special Work Session this week was convened to allow Mr. Al Lamas, Deputy Attorney General and his team to discuss the impacts of electronic devices under the provisions of the Open Meeting Act . His office provided copies of the Compliance Guide to the members of the Council, City officials and the public. This Compliance Guide represents 25 years of case law. His opinion was that the recent resolution passed by the Council prohibiting emails, texting, and cell phone use by Council members meets the legal test and is appropriate.
He stressed that “rolling quorums” are specifically prohibited and that the Council cannot circulate emails between themselves concerning any issue, agenda item or issue concerning the City. Receipt of emails during Council meeting potentially violates the Open Meeting act unless they are made public during the meeting.
This was supported by Mr. Lamas ‘comments where he stressed that the Council should be involved in a thoughtful listening process. Their job is to interpret and evaluate that information publically presented at the meeting so that they can make the appropriate decisions. If they feel they don’t have sufficient information it is incumbent upon them to table the discussions. Furthermore, the presenters and the public expect that the Council members use common sense and focus on paying attention to them rather than being distracted by doing simultaneous online research.
Council members Sorg, Pedroza, and Small previously stated that Councilors were not judges or juries so judicial conduct standards should not apply. Randy Van Flect, Legal Council for the Municipal League discussed the quasi-judicial process and potential legal conflicts for the Council and informed them that the Council cannot consider itself solely a Legislative body. It is in fact all three (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial) and therefore must be held to the same higher judicial standards. |
| Jim Harbison |
Even after all the discussions only Mayor Miyagishima and Councilor Connor acknowledged understanding the law. Councilors Thomas, Sorg, Pedroza, Small and Silva “still don’t get it” and were obviously not listening to the presentation because they continue to claim that they need access to email information from experts and constituents during the meeting and thus potentially violating the law. Perception is reality and using their electronic devices and doing research while in session can certainly reinforce the perception that they are involved in unauthorized activities. This gives the public the opportunity to legally challenge them including in the court of public opinion. Wouldn’t it be better if the Councilors came to the Council meetings prepared, listened carefully and thoughtfully, and either made decisions based on the information presented or tabled the action until the information was available? At least the public would know they were paying attention and performing their duties appropriately.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment