News-Record.com

If the Council members want the truth they will go searching for it from any source. The city has the documentation but will only show what Mitch Johnson wants to show. It was silly to show just a book filled with pictures of Black men to the council! It was stupid for the Council members not to ask for more information. If only to ask why this book was considered a witch hunt book. They might also have asked just who the police officers who were pictured to see if any of the so-called "targeted ones were in the book.. Of course now we know that they were not.

Doug this whole thing had a very bad smell from the very beginning and like dead fish it has just gotten more and more rotten as time goes on.

Nope. You're completely wrong on this one, Doug. No government body should ever intentionally evade the Open Meetings Law. That law is in place for a good reason - to protect citizens from overzealous officials. Once elected officials start abusing those laws, it quickly becomes a slippery slope.

This whole deal has been a mess, sure. But the City Council shouldn't play ball with Cohen. If he wants to share this information, he can do it in open session. Nothing is stopping him and this whole deal sounds like a grandstand play to me.

Plus, the real problem here is an issue of public trust. I'm not sure how information gained in an illegal meeting would improve the public's confidence in the process. Quite the opposite, really.

I'm disappointed to see the N&R advocate such government secrecy - illegal secrecy, might I add. I'm sure the Rhino Times, which has proved to be a much better advocate for open government, would never make such a request.

I'm assuming that members of the City Council can read; therefore, they could read what Mr. Cohen has stated in another publication. The News & Record could even interview Mr. Cohen so that they could report the same information.

The Council Members could also meet individually or in small groups...

That's assuming that they are serious about getting this issue moved along and out of here.

Please don't confuse my own opinion with the position of the N&R.

I respect the opinion that council members should not meet privately with Cohen; however, doing so in groups of four or fewer would not be "illegal." I did not propose an illegal meeting. My suggestion offers a legal and expedient means for council members to receive information directly from Cohen. Last week, they were all interested in hearing from him. Are they still?

I'm rescinding your press pass, Doug.

Two other ways to handle it: Seth can make his case in the open. He represents the Rhino as its advocate for open meetings so you might think he believes in the spirit of the law.

Or the council can call in its own police chief and get the skinny on whether there is something else in the book.

Regardless, a council that preaches the transparency message must practice it even though it's hard.

Doug,

If you're going to buy the line that the city met legally in a closed session to view the "black book" because it was a matter of attorney-client privilege, one must have an answer to the question of what legal matter justified the attorney-client exception?

Thanks, Roch. Good point. Justification for that closed meeting was questionable at best.

Thanks, JR. I think it would be a good idea for the council to ask Chief Bellamy to provide more info about the black book in a public meeting.

I'm still waiting for the council's community meeting which is supposed to clear the air about all these police issues.

However, I don't think that council members should be restricted to gathering information ONLY in open meetings.

I did not propose an illegal meeting.

**************

What you proposed certainly violated the spirit of the Open Meetings Law, if not the precise letter. I bet a good lawyer could make a strong case that the types of meetings you suggest violate the Open Meetings Law.

Again, the "slippery slope" effect comes into play. If you say the council should skirt the law now because it's justified, it's not too hard to come up with more and more "exceptions" to that law. Before long, the Open Meetings Law wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy, laws are enforced consistently and justly, while in a dictatorship, they are enforced according to the whims of those in power. We must remain a nation of laws, even when that isn't the most convenient option.

Don Moore is correct above. Surely council members have the information needed to confirm they were given an incomplete presentation.
The question now would be who orchestrated the misleading information provided in closed session and if it was intentional.

Cohen says the City Attorney's have the same info that he has, so this whole "open meetings" excuse is a red herring and a way to avoid having to acknowledge the documents that put the "black book" in context.

Wake up, you are being fooled again.

I imagine the City Council has a long history of members meeting or communicating on important issues in small groups, without violation of the Open Meetings Law. If the legislature felt the law should be more restrictive, I'm sure it would have updated existing statutes to that effect. If four members can't discuss an issue, how about three or two?

Council members serve on a part-time basis and meet every other week. It's encouraging that they are willing to find the time to investigate information such as that advanced by Seth Cohen.

I am sick of attorneys opinions. The main reason we are in this damn mess is "attorneys opinions". Wasn't it Linda Miles "opinion" to stop the Homestead investigation ? Most of the problems the COG has had for years has been the micro-managing of the City Attorneys Office.

Another thing, Who will walk away with the lions share of the money from all these lawsuits?

How will this city ever heal until Mitch and Linda are gone for good?