It's my view that the only change needed to the Open Meetings Act is a clear definition of "deliberate" for those who don't seem to get it.
And maybe stiffer penalties for violations, but there won't be any violations if there aren't any secret deliberations.
My dictionary says the definition of deliberate in this context is:
4. to weigh in the mind; consider: to deliberate a question.
6. to consult or confer formally: The jury deliberated for three hours.
To me, this means that the following is deliberation:
"I think this zoning request should be denied because it will increase traffic in the neighborhood. You should vote against it too. What does Jack think? Can we get him to go along?"
The following is not deliberation:
"This rezoning will increase traffic in the neighborhood. How's the coffee?"
What do y'all think?
- Louisville Point Park Eagle? (6 replies)
- I'd vote for her (1 reply)
- Repealing Obamacare affects everyone (28 replies)
- a small but notable defeat for privatization (10 replies)
- Anger erupts at Republican town halls (8 replies)
- Epic troll (1 reply)
- White House blocks news organizations from press briefing (6 replies)
- The How & Why (1 reply)
- JCPenney to close up to 140 stores (1 reply)
- More signs of spring (1 reply)
- Thoughts on Trumpspeak (2 replies)
- City to exclude glass from curbside recycling (17 replies)
- Feb 27 2017 - 7:00pm (1 day 20 hours from now)
- Mar 4 2017 - 11:00am (6 days 12 hours from now)
- Mar 7 2017 - 7:00pm (1 week 2 days from now)