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?
- Who's worse: Delusional sellers or Realtors who enable them? (2 replies)
- Conversations (3 replies)
- JD3 cleared to run for Congress (28 replies)
- ISIS (40 replies)
- Laying the foundation (13 replies)
- McIntyre: Burchett remarks "appalling" and "ignorant" (35 replies)
- The "newsroom of the future" without Chas Sisk (3 replies)
- Episcopal Church approves liturgy for blessing same-gender unions (4 replies)
- Unemployment up in Tennessee (9 replies)
- Why can't the US make erasers? (10 replies)
- 10th anniversay of US invasion of Iraq (43 replies)
- Patient advocates say insurers avoiding the sick (2 replies)