Mike...contrary to what you state at the beginning of your post, you have not posted the actual open meeting law as displayed in council chambers.
You have copied and pasted word for word, the helpful interpretation provided by Jon Bruning, Nebraska Attorney General, on his site.
Bruning's information is helpful because he gives case law that helps shed light where the law itself can possibly be misunderstood, perhaps by council members thinking that a closed session to hire a new lawyer is somehow legal (just whose reputation were they trying to protect?).
Or perhaps by a council thinking that they can meet to discuss "personnel" without giving the person being discussed the opportunity to have that discussion in the open...in fact, not even inviting that person into the closed meeting.
These were the situations at the closed sessions convened by the Sidney City Council last year. Of course, these facts are not convenient to you, Mike, and I imagine you will discount them, although the videos prove that those are the facts.
Before you start screaming to me to file a complaint, consider that someone would have to pay a lawyer to file this complaint and since council took no action, there is nothing to void or correct. I simply seek to keep them from doing it again, which is clearly their intent from their public statements. Although if a lawyer stepped forward and offered to file the complaint pro-bono, I'd gladly sign it. Why? Because the next time they do it, it would be a second offense and carry possible jail time.
These were the situations at the closed sessions convened by the Sidney City Council last year. Of course, these facts are not convenient to you, Mike, and I imagine you will discount them, although the videos prove that those are the facts.
Before you start screaming to me to file a complaint, consider that someone would have to pay a lawyer to file this complaint and since council took no action, there is nothing to void or correct. I simply seek to keep them from doing it again, which is clearly their intent from their public statements. Although if a lawyer stepped forward and offered to file the complaint pro-bono, I'd gladly sign it. Why? Because the next time they do it, it would be a second offense and carry possible jail time.
By the way, I'm not just talking about Van Vleet, Weiderspon and Filsinger. Gaston and Hiett may not have always voted no, but they went into the meetings and didn't come out and tell us that the meetings were improper. As they say, ignorance of the law is no defense.
In case you are interested, the actual laws can be read in their entirety on the Nebraska Legislature's site. Go to the Nebraska Legislature site and scroll all the way down to where the law begins at section 84-1408.
Anyway Mike, because you are such a stickler for facts and accuracy, I thought you would want to know all this.
Here's the video from May 12, 2009. Go read the statutes. Go read Bruning's interpretations. Bob wants to protect people's reputations in case he says something that might be misconstrued as negative. The law says he must invite those same people into the meeting with him unless they request an open session. And we have a right to know who they are talking about.
In case you are interested, the actual laws can be read in their entirety on the Nebraska Legislature's site. Go to the Nebraska Legislature site and scroll all the way down to where the law begins at section 84-1408.
Anyway Mike, because you are such a stickler for facts and accuracy, I thought you would want to know all this.
Here's the video from May 12, 2009. Go read the statutes. Go read Bruning's interpretations. Bob wants to protect people's reputations in case he says something that might be misconstrued as negative. The law says he must invite those same people into the meeting with him unless they request an open session. And we have a right to know who they are talking about.
No comments:
Post a Comment