As you all know, I have been working on the City Leader performance site which will be an ongoing project.

While categorizing the resolutions from every month since Nov 24, 2003 (I will had prior years when I am done with this part) I found two instances wherein Closed Sessions were held without prior resolution or without an emergency request for a closed session.

I am posting this for two reasons:
1) to remind everyone how important it is for the OMA to be followed particularly in the sense of closed sessions.
2) to keep a record of my findings in case we need it in the future

It is permissible per OMA to hold an emergency closed session but it needs to be identified as such.

Per the June 7, 2004 minutes a closed session was held on June 1, 2004 @ 7:00 p.m. for Labor Negotiations.

I reviewed minutes from April 04, thru June 04 and could not find any of the following

• a resolution setting this closed session which is generally how a closed session is set
• an emergency closed session called during the regular meeting (which we had two 1) September 7, 2004 - Resolution 04-488 and 2) October 12, 2004- Resolution 04-561) or
• any resolution pertaining to this closed session which may not have been correctly listed as closed session.

Per the October 12, 2004 minutes a closed session was held on October 4, 2004 @ 7:30 p.m. for Pending Litigation

I reviewed Minutes from July 26, 2004 thru October 18, 2004 and could not find any of the following:

• a resolution setting this closed session which is generally how a closed session is set
• an emergency closed session called during the regular meeting (which we had one September 7, 2004 - Resolution 04-488) or
• any resolution pertaining to this closed session which may not have been correctly listed as closed session.

It is too late based on statute of limitations to call foul but it is certainly important to know this information so that it does not happen again.

Our city leaders must be held accountable and we already know that foul was called with the OMA Complaint on seperate meetings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Sometimes we must serve in order to lead"
by Unknown

  Submit to Quotes         

Could it just be poor record keeping?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




-- excerpted from The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

  Submit to Quotes         

Indeed it could be...... point is that this "is" the public record of the meetings.

Whether it is error or omission by intent or accident.... point is it "is" the public record.

The above are not only things I am finding missing..... I think that Duchane for the whole $102,000 plus $2750 to his personal retirment acct annually should assume the record keeping..... this is a serious area that no errors particularly ones about "closed meetings" should occur.

  Submit to Quotes         

The city charter likely says minute taking and record keeping is the job of the city clerk. If it doesn't, it should. That's whose job that is.

  Submit to Quotes