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?
- Supreme Court rules against EPA on regulating mercury emissions (15 replies)
- New revelations in deadly school bus crash (89 replies)
- Today's school board work session (5 replies)
- Sheriff's office stonewalling jail beating victim's lawyers? (5 replies)
- New law means property tax increase for seniors and disabled veterans (2 replies)
- Rally for teachers (8 replies)
- 2015 Shootings in Knox County, TN (44 replies)
- BREAKING: Supreme Court rules same sex marriage bans unconstitutional (46 replies)
- BREAKING: Supreme Court decision on Obamacare exchanges: subsidies intact (18 replies)
- Bobby Jindal: ‘Let’s just get rid of the court’ (6 replies)
- 1000 teachers resign from Charlotte-Mecklenberg Schools (4 replies)
- GOP: Confederate flag OK if you vote for us (35 replies)