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?
- Up against the wall: Sanders supporters disrupt Nevada convention, issue death threats (62 replies)
- UK votes to leave EU, PM Cameron resigns (13 replies)
- Inside a Corrections Corporation of America for-profit prison (1 reply)
- Knox area financial counseling resources for the poor? (8 replies)
- Ralph Stanley RIP (1 reply)
- Democrats staging sit-in on House floor (42 replies)
- Happy Pollinators Week! Please, take action (3 replies)
- You can tell it's summer (16 replies)
- "Make America White Again" (4 replies)
- The gun debate, face to face (61 replies)
- DOJ: 301 defendants charged in $900 million Medicare/Medicaid fraud bust (2 replies)
- City Council workshop on payday lending zoning ordinance (1 reply)