I would like to know if the City's recent decision to rescind on its agreement to abide by the County's UGA analysis, which was done in closed session, was in conformity with the law.
I, like many people, only learned about it from reading the Cascadia. Does anybody know?
I feel certain it was lawful and--pursuant to the settlement of impending litigation--rightly decided in executive session.Council revised some troublesome assertions in the Feb resolution.
Doing so probably saved the city $100K in useless litigation while changing nothing. It made good sense, even if it sent a waffling sort of message.
My $0.02. Tim Johnson -- Editor of the Cascadia Weekly
Here's a copy of the statute that covers open meetings:
Ordinances, rules, resolutions, regulations, etc., adopted at public meetings — Notice — Secret voting prohibited.
(1) No governing body of a public agency shall adopt any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, order, or directive, except in a meeting open to the public and then only at a meeting, the date of which is fixed by law or rule, or at a meeting of which notice has been given according to the provisions of this chapter. Any action taken at meetings failing to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be null and void.
(2) No governing body of a public agency at any meeting required to be open to the public shall vote by secret ballot. Any vote taken in violation of this subsection shall be null and void, and shall be considered an "action" under this chapter.
[1989 c 42 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 6.]