Butting Heads With A Rhino
If City Council wanted a fight with the Rhinoceros Times, it sure knew what buttons to push.
Elected leaders voted 7-2 Monday to leave City Hall straight from their late-night closed sessions, which typically follow open meetings televised on Channel 13 and available for the public to attend. Until now, Council would return to their seats after a closed session, then make a vote to adjourn for the night. Not anymore. From now on, your city leaders plan to leave for the night straight from those closed sessions. In fact, that's how it once worked, until the Rhino got involved.
Over the winter, Rhino editor John Hammer had forced this very same issue. Based on a state Attorney General advisory opinion from 2005, Hammer argued that Council was required by law to come back into open session in order to adjourn. His point was this: if you tell the public and the press that you're going home for the night after you wrap up a closed session, you could -- in theory -- return to open session to pass certain measures without anyone taking notice. Council eventually decided they should come back into open session to adjourn, must to Hammer's pleasure, even if it meant hanging around for hours on end with nothing to do as the politicians talked in closed session.
Apparently, the 50 paces from council members' offices to the council chamber is too far to travel at night. For on Monday, they decided to go back to the way things once were. Mike Barber and Sandra Anderson were the dissenting votes, with Barber voicing his fears about the change for the very reasons Hammer cited in his paper.
Council relied on the legal advice of City Attorney Linda Miles to ignore the state advisory opinion. And, technically speaking, that's its right, since an opinion is not legally enforceable. It would take a civil lawsuit to get the matter addressed by the courts or, should a state lawmaker be so inclined, legislation in Raleigh to clarify the matter. Miles based her own opinion on advice from the UNC Institute of Government.
Her point is this: Council can, in fact, decide to leave straight from a closed session -- if they vote on it beforehand. She said she can't think of a time when Council ever needed to make a public vote after adjourning.
Hammer has said this will be an issue he takes up in tomorrow's Rhino.
UPDATE: I just spoke with Miles, who explained her (and the Institute of Government's) position. She says that the Council can, in fact, adjourn for the night before its closed session. Nothing says the closed session needs to be an "interlude" to a public meeting. However, if the council in closed session needs to vote on something, it's stuck... according to the open meetings law, after adjourning a regular meeting, advanced notice must be given for the next meeting.
That said, Miles argued that the Council CAN adjourn and tell the public it MAY return from closed session for a vote. That would be OK.
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Good for the Rhino Times! They are looking out for the public's interest on this one.
Mr. Hammer is absolutely right. City Council should conduct its business in plain sight. I don't like these closed sessions to begin with, but at least if they have to return to open session before the end of the meeting, there is some safeguard against them doing something underhanded.
And I see this as more than a "theory." I have no doubt that the City Council will try to abuse this tactic any way they can to keep their business out of the public's eye. Good luck to the Rhino Times.
Posted on August 9, 2007 9:40 AM
Council can tell people that they "may" return and that would be okay?
Did you ask Miles to see the opinion from the Institute of Government that supports that or for the name of the person who offered that opinion so that you could verify it?
Legalities aside, it surely is disrespectful of the public (Anderson-Groat and Barber excepted), to do it that way just so the council can yank Hammer's chain a bit.
Posted on August 9, 2007 9:44 AM
Just Saying: Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.
Roch: Yes, I did. City Legal faxed over a copy of an e-mail from David M. Lawrence at the Institute of Government. The e-mail was sent in January. I'll try to get a PDF linked later today, but here's the text:
"Terry (Wood, deputy city attorney) - I believe that the city's practice on adjourning meetings is proper. If the city does not intend to return to open session after a closed session, it may adjourn subject to the holding of the closed session. It would not have to return to open session and then adjourn, after the closed session. I know of no basis in the statute for a contrary view. - David"
Posted on August 9, 2007 11:50 AM
Hopefully after this November this will no longer be an issue.
Posted on August 9, 2007 2:21 PM
"Hopefully after this November this will no longer be an issue."
Indeed.
We need to do everything we can to avoid the fiascoes imposed by most of the sitting city council,the mayor, and those hired employees who forget that they are employees, not policy makers.
A get out the vote campaign to increase turnout significantly should be a key in making this happen.
Posted on August 9, 2007 4:09 PM
Thanks, Eric.
Isn't there a distinction though between Lawrence's opinion that adjourning subject to holding the closed session and what Miles claimed, that the council can adjourn and tell the public that it MAY return? That opinion doesn't seem to be supported at all be the email you cite.
Posted on August 9, 2007 11:49 PM
As a county commissioner, I feel that it is in the best interest of all concerned to return to open session and then adjourn. That way, there is no feeling of deception and everyone leaves the meeting on the same page.
Posted on September 8, 2007 9:07 PM
As a county commissioner, I feel that it is in the best interest of all concerned to return to open session and then adjourn. That way, there is no feeling of deception and everyone leaves the meeting on the same page.
Posted on September 8, 2007 9:08 PM
Ms. Miles is a city employee, who serves at the behest of the City Manager. If intellegience played a role in this fiasco, why don't they just check Robert's Rules of Orders.
From watching those proceedings on cable. I see where the mayor asks the City Manager for any other items that may be deemed for action, and then, the City Manager will state that there are some items that needs to be taken into closed sessions. It is my understanding, that they can go into a close session, but cannot vote on any item/subject, that was not posted on a agenda. A motion is made, and seconded, and then voted on.
To adjourn a meeting, any public/closed meeting...refer to Robert's Rules of Order. I am sure that is where the Institute of Government refers to, too.
Posted on September 11, 2007 11:55 AM