Tom Humphrey files this report on the recommendations by the committee studying changes to the state's open meetings act.
After all the study and debate, it appears all they can agree on is to change the law from not allowing deliberation among two or more officials to not allowing three (or a majority, whichever is less) or more to deliberate. By not allowing two or more, the current law effectively allows no deliberation. The new law, if as described, would now allow two to deliberate. It is not clear how this is a change for the better.
It should also be noted that the article contains a factual error. The article states "Current law says that a meeting of two or more officials can be a violation." Actually, the law says that deliberation between two or more officials is a violation, not a meeting, and even provides for exceptions such as chance meetings or visits to a project site.
According to the article, there were also arguments to allow deliberation by phone or e-mail, as these would not be a "meeting."
It's pretty sad that elected officials have so much trouble understanding that they can't deliberate in secret and that the public's business must be conducted in public.
- Burchett: McIntyre needs to go (53 replies)
- A future for I-40? (11 replies)
- BREAKING: Herron will not seek second term as TNDP chair (10 replies)
- A Trip in the Country (3 replies)
- Asperger Support Group Tonight 6pm-7pm with Special Guests (14 replies)
- New Traffic Radar Gun Will Detect When Drivers Are Texting (12 replies)
- Alexander agrees to debate Ball (2 replies)
- Gordon Ball earns an 'F' from NRA (3 replies)
- The Artful Dodger: Dr. Briggs "radio silence" on Cheri Siler's invitation to debate (38 replies)
- National POW/MIA Recognition Day (2 replies)
- For theater/re lovers (1 reply)
- Redefining Scrooge (8 replies)
- Sep 22 2014 - 4:15pm (10 hours 4 min from now)
- Sep 23 2014 - 6:15pm (1 day 12 hours from now)
- Sep 23 2014 - 7:00pm (1 day 12 hours from now)
- Sep 25 2014 - 6:00pm (3 days 11 hours from now)