|
|
Want some cheese with that wine?
Anonymous -
How about enlightening us as to the date and time as well as the content of your supposed posting?
Should we offer a course on how to use the internet for you first timers? Just for you, we coould call it; PATA 101 - How To Respond To a Posting.
Of course such a remedial offer will include no college credit.
By Coyote
|
|
|
|
|
|
And also...
Obviously Watchful or someone he/she knows saw something and it piqued their curiosity. And obviously the responder either has a guilty conscience or is defending someone who should.
Try Bob Evans or the Stonecreek Diner for breakfast and make your own observations.
At least Lou and the old gang went to Reynoldsburg for their violations!
Also, Watchful made a good point that Ethics legislation was enacted but it doesn't seem to apply to new councilmen or the new assistant city manager or the new engineer. If they don't attend training and get caught with their hand in a cookie jar, they can always plead innocence because they weren't mandated to attend training.
And what is the deal with the city hiring an engineer?? Didn't most of the councilmen and mayor and city manager make statements during the hiring process of a law firm that the city outgrew the capabilities of a one-man show, in-house lawyer?? If they already spend a lot of our tax dollars on an engineering firm, why did they toss aside their argument FOR a law firm over in-house staff in favor of an in-house engineer OVER an established and extremely reputable engineering firm??
I despise hypocrisy. I especially despise it in elected officials. Good guys, bad guys ?– I could care less. Don?’t be a hypocrite!
|
|
|
Open violations?
So you're indicating a majority of council is meeting and violating the law regularly?
http://www.ag.state.oh.us/legal/pubs/2006_sunshine_law_book.pdf
C. DEFINITION OF A ?“MEETING?” UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT
Before a public body is subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, it must first have a meeting. A
?“meeting?” is a prearranged gathering of a majority of the members of a public body to discuss or conduct public
business.411 Each of these three characteristics must be present; otherwise, the gathering is not a meeting and is not
subject to the Open Meetings Act requirements. Where each of these characteristics is present, the gathering is a
meeting, regardless of whether the public body itself initiated the meeting or it was initiated by another entity.412
If the members of multiple public bodies meet together, whose meeting is it?
Where members of a public body gather with representatives of other public bodies, the gathering may be
construed to be a separate meeting of each public body with a majority attending.413
What if the members of the public body are not ?“deliberating?” or ?“discussing?” public
business?
Some courts have found that a gathering of the members of a public body is not a meeting where they act only as
passive observers in a ministerial fact-gathering capacity or informational session.414
?“Discussion?”415 is an exchange of words, comments or ideas. The simple presentation of information to a public
body, without more, may not be discussion.416
?“Deliberation?” involves the weighing and examination of reasons for and against a course of action.417 Simple
information gathering or fact finding may not be enough.418 However, the open meetings act is to be liberally
construed.419
|
|
|
Meeting
If you are speaking of two members meeting as I have seen as well, then that does not violate anything. This happens much more than you would think, and is in no way a violation of the sunshine laws.
|
