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?
- International Baccalaureate (9 replies)
- What's at stake with Amendment One (13 replies)
- 'No' votes on Amendment 1 changed to 'Yes' (3 replies)
- BREAKING: Metro Pulse shutting down, staff fired, other layoffs at KNS (304 replies)
- Literary artists in the house! Homes given to writers for free in Detroit (3 replies)
- A Great Response to a False and Deceptive Ad (16 replies)
- Here's a fun way to explain our State Senate Race (7 replies)
- Town Hall Forum (1 reply)
- ISIS+ (10 replies)
- We're calling a personal foul on Gloria Johnson's opponent (18 replies)
- Burlington is back (10 replies)
- Blackwater guards found guilty in Iraq shootings (8 replies)
- Oct 28 2014 - 5:30pm (3 days 9 hours from now)
- Oct 28 2014 - 6:00pm (3 days 9 hours from now)
- Oct 30 2014 - 7:00pm (5 days 10 hours from now)