Archive for Open Meeting Law

FIRST TIME IN A DECADE YAVAPAI COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD HAS NOT POSTED VIDEOTAPE OF MEETING TO ACT AS DRAFT OF MINUTES

Unsubstantiated suspicion and rumors are floating around the County regarding an alleged effort to hide some conversations from County residents that occurred during the January 16 meeting 

It is now over a week (Thursday, January 25, 2024, noon) and the District Governing Board has yet to provide the public with a draft of the minutes of its January 16 workshop. Neither a written draft nor the video of the meeting has been posted.

It is noteworthy that the video of the workshop wasn’t released shortly after the meeting, which is a deviation from the standard practice established over the last decade. The publication of the video of a meeting  was put in place to comply with Arizona’s Open Meeting Law three-day posting rule.

Speculations arose shortly after the January 16 meeting, fueled by unsubstantiated rumors about certain conversations that allegedly occurred during the meeting, which the Board might prefer to keep from the county residents. These rumors were compounded by the unusual decision not to post the unedited video of the meeting.

The validity of these rumors remains uncertain. There are questions about whether the Board and the College are apprehensive about what the residents might learn from the video. The absence of an unedited, uncut version of the meeting video leaves a great deal of room for speculation.

THREE-DAY OPEN MEETING LAW POSTING OF DRAFT MINUTES IS BEING IGNORED

Unclear why District Governing Board is allowing this to happen

Under Arizona’s open meeting law, the minutes or a recording of a meeting shall be available for public inspection three working days after the meeting. However, as of Thursday, January 25, 2024, there has not been a post of the draft minutes in writing or via the videotape of the District Governing Board meeting that occurred Tuesday, January 16.

So far, there has been no explanation for the unusual delay. The following is Arizona’s Open Meeting Law provision:

38-431.01Meetings shall be open to the public

A. All meetings of any public body shall be public meetings and all persons so desiring shall be permitted to attend and listen to the deliberations and proceedings.  All legal action of public bodies shall occur during a public meeting.

B. All public bodies shall provide for the taking of written minutes or a recording of all their meetings, including executive sessions.  For meetings other than executive sessions, the minutes or recording shall include:

1. The date, time and place of the meeting.

2. The members of the public body recorded as either present or absent.

3. A general description of the matters considered.

4. An accurate description of all legal actions proposed, discussed or taken, including a record of how each member voted. The minutes shall also include the names of the members who propose each motion and the names of the persons, as given, who make statements or present material to the public body and a reference to the legal action about which they made statements or presented material.

C. Minutes of executive sessions shall include items set forth in subsection B, paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this section, an accurate description of all instructions given pursuant to section 38-431.03, subsection A, paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 and other matters as may be deemed appropriate by the public body.

D. The minutes or a recording of a meeting shall be available for public inspection three working days after the meeting except as otherwise specifically provided by this article.

E. A public body of a city or town with a population of more than two thousand five hundred persons shall:

1. Within three working days after a meeting, except for subcommittees and advisory committees, post on its website, if applicable, either:

(a) A statement describing the legal actions taken by the public body of the city or town during the meeting.

(b) Any recording of the meeting.

2. Within two working days following approval of the minutes, post approved minutes of city or town council meetings on its website, if applicable, except as otherwise specifically provided by this article.

3. Within ten working days after a subcommittee or advisory committee meeting, post on its website, if applicable, either:

(a) A statement describing legal action, if any.

(b) A recording of the meeting.

F. All or any part of a public meeting of a public body may be recorded by any person in attendance by means of a tape recorder or camera or any other means of sonic reproduction, provided that there is no active interference with the conduct of the meeting.

G. The secretary of state for state public bodies, the city or town clerk for municipal public bodies and the county clerk for all other local public bodies shall conspicuously post open meeting law materials prepared and approved by the attorney general on their website.  A person elected or appointed to a public body shall review the open meeting law materials at least one day before the day that person takes office.

H. A public body may make an open call to the public during a public meeting, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, to allow individuals to address the public body on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body. At the conclusion of an open call to the public, individual members of the public body may respond to criticism made by those who have addressed the public body, may ask staff to review a matter or may ask that a matter be put on a future agenda.  However, members of the public body shall not discuss or take legal action on matters raised during an open call to the public unless the matters are properly noticed for discussion and legal action.

I. A member of a public body shall not knowingly direct any staff member to communicate in violation of this article.

J. Any posting required by subsection E of this section must remain on the applicable website for at least one year after the date of the posting.

STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL CLOSES OPEN MEETING LAW COMPLAINT INVOLVING MARICOPA COMMUNITY COLLEGE

Board member Kathleen Winn had alleged that the Governing Board’s  former president, Linda Thor, coordinated with other board members outside a public meeting to remove Winn as a board officer in January 2020

According to a story in the Arizona Republic of November 9, 2020 by Anne Ryman, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office has closed its open meeting law investigation involving Maricopa Community College.   It  concluded it could not  substantiate a violation of state law.

The investigation was launched when Governing Board member Kathleen Winn filed an Arizona Open Meetings Law complaint in August. Ms. Winn alleged  that the Maricopa Community College’s Governing Board  former president, Linda Thor, coordinated with other board members outside a public meeting to remove Winn as a board officer in January.

The complaint to the Attorney General claimed  board members engaged in serial or chain communication related to board leadership positions. It alleged that  Thor strategized in January to remove Winn as an officer through conversations with three other board members: Marie Sullivan, Laurin Hendrix and Tom Nerini. It also alleged that Hendrix then had conversations with board member Jean McGrath.

An attorney representing the Governing Board wrote that Thor, Sullivan, Hendrix and Nerini said they did not discuss board positions before the January meeting. He also said  that  the topic of the board presidency came up in two unrelated, one-on-one conversations between two different pairs of board members. But neither exchange rose to the level of a “discussion” under state law, he said. “These conversations did not involve a quorum of board Members, and they were not part of a chain or serial communication.”

Source:  Anne Ryman, Arizona Republic, November 9, 2020 story.