Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />• <br />COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 23, 1998 <br />Another issue raised by Council Member Bergeson is that of where and how Council obtains <br />legal opinions. He expressed strong feelings that legal opinions should come routinely from the <br />City Attorney and, in the event a second opinion is requested, Council as a body with full <br />knowledge of the City Attorney should make that decision. Council Member Bergeson <br />suggested that a policy be created specifying that the City Attorney is the first source of opinion <br />with a procedure for obtaining any second opinion. <br />Council Member Bergeson also suggested that Council develop a policy with regard to the open <br />meeting law which would provide future guidance on this issue. <br />Mayor Sullivan asked that these matters be brought to the next Council work session for <br />discussion. She added that recent Council training provided information which conflicted with <br />that provided by the City Attorney, thus the ensuing confusion regarding open meeting law <br />violation. Based upon this conflict, Mayor Sullivan sought an additional opinion and <br />subsequently announced that attendance by Council at the Comprehensive Plan Task Force <br />meeting would be a violation of this law. She added that this information was forwarded to City <br />Attorney Hawkins, but had not had an opportunity to discuss this matter with him. <br />Mr. Hawkins explained that the open meeting law states, in summary, that any meeting of <br />various public agencies must be open to the public, and that a record of that meeting must be <br />kept of such meetings so that those who are unable to physically attend can discover its content <br />at a later time. Mr. Hawkins went on to identify the Comprehensive Task Force meeting as a <br />public meeting by definition, as it was noticed, the public was invited, and a record was kept. He <br />added that Council was correct in attending the recent Charter Commission meeting as well. <br />And, although there is no case law to support his opinion, Mr. Hawkins stated that attendance at <br />such meetings is consistent with the intent of the open meeting law. He added that should <br />specific issues be raised, a special meeting should be called and posted, thus avoiding any <br />misunderstanding. <br />Mayor Sullivan referred to case law, indicating that due to discussion of a long-term City plan <br />notice of Council attendance should have taken place. Mr. Hawkins responded that the only <br />requirement for such a gathering was that it meet the definition of a public meeting; that notice <br />was not necessary. He added that the matter resulting in the case law referred to by Mayor <br />Sullivan involved school board members attending a planning retreat where information was <br />exchanged inappropriately, clearly distinguishable from the meetings in question. Mr. Hawkins <br />reiterated that any posting of notice can take place when Council members plan to attend other <br />public meetings. <br />Chief Pecchia stated that Staff recognizes where responsibility lies in this situation, and will <br />come to the next work session with proposed guidelines to avoid future such incidents. <br />Council Member Bergeson reiterated that Council should rely heavily on the City Attorney and, <br />in the unlikely event that Council should take incorrect action as a result of his advice, the City <br />Attorney would assume responsibility for correcting the problem. Mr. Hawkins responded that <br />open meeting law issues are common and, as with any issue brought to him by Council, he seeks <br />19 <br />