We Report, You Decide.
BACKGROUND - There is a limited exception of the Sunshine Law for Attorney-Client discussions.
The narrow exception applies only to discussions between the members of the public body and the attorney. Once any discussion begins among members of the public body as to what action should be taken based on the advice of counsel, those discussion must be open to the public.
The exception was limited to cases in which there was present and pending litigation and the public body was named in the lawsuit. In 1991 the exception was extended to a meeting of the board with its attorney regarding a pending controversy that was likely to result in litigation.
In summary, this narrow exception applies only to meeting between a public body and it’s attorney that 1.) Must concern litigation that has already been filed or which is likely to be filed and to which the county is or will be a party, and 2.) The private meeting must be limited to discussions between the attorney and members of the public body regarding the public body’s legal options, and no discussions between members of the public body as to what action should be taken can take place.
One could argue that the private meetings held on October 13, 2005 and on October 17, 2005, as accurately reported in The Courier, violates the Open Meeting Act in that there must have been discussions between member of the County Commission as to what action should be taken at these meetings or they all had an epiphany at the same time. Each of the commissioners would have to have had a sudden intuitive realization or a sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of the settlement agreement.
Now we’re talking about our Hardin County Commissioners and our Mayor here.
The Courier noted:
"After the public was readmitted, Commissioner James Whitehorn’s motion to "accept the settlement as presented" was unanimously approved without discussed by the board.
Mayor and Commission Chairman Davis did not offer any details about the settlement at the meeting and the attorney would not release a copy of the settlement to The Courier, saying it would not become a public record until signed by the parties to the suit."
This is the same settlement agreement that had just been unanimously approved at a public meeting, but it was not a public record, yet and the public couldn’t see it. Yeah, right.
Think about it. The standard is that NO discussions as to what action should be taken can take place and once any discussion begins among members of the public body as to what action should be taken based on the advice of counsel, those discussion must be open to the public. Not in Hardin County.
This is one of those wrongs without a remedy, but worthy of note for historical information.
But the question needs to be ask - remembering the litigation has been going on for months and the subject has been discussed for decades - Did it really take two more private meetings to explain the county’s legal options on the Jail to the Commissioners?
(Epiphany - A sudden manifestation of the essence or meaning of something.
A comprehension or perception of reality by means of a sudden intuitive realization.)
Whatta think?
1 comment:
I doubt that the meeting with the attorney was a violation of the open meetings act. That being said, I think the real issue is the terms of the agreement.
I have not seen the agreed order yet, and my only source of information about it is the Courier. However, from what I read, it appears to me that the commission has agreed to build and operate a facility that greatly exceeds, in both building and operational costs, the requirements of the Tennessee Corrections Institute, which regulates and certifies county jails in Tennessee. I can understand and agree with the the desire to settle this lawsuit, but the terms of any settlement should not be more restrictive or expensive than those dictated for compliance with TCI regulations.
Post a Comment