It appears that the Tucson City Council has violated the Open Meeting Law during the study session of April 4, 2007.
My reasons for thinking this are:
The memorandum ‘Presentation Regarding a Proposed Public/Private Partnership for a Downtown Hotel, Convention Center and Arena (Ward 1) dated April 4, 2007 refers to an Attachment: Memorandum from Council member Ibarra dated March 28th, 2007, which names a different proposal than the proposal accepted and assigned as described on the ‘Administrative Action Report and Summary April 4, 2007’, which passes for the absence of minutes, as described by a city employee. Evidently the Norville proposal was the designated agenda item as detailed in the Ibarra Memo, but the proposal voted upon was evidently presented at the meeting and voted upon without prior notification of the populace that this proposal would be even mentioned, much less voted upon.
Now I really don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do respect and admire Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and would be suitably distraught if Boss Tweed appeared among us.
It looks like passing items not on the agenda during a study session is a violation and not having minutes is a violation. If the argument that the agenda item is broad in scope and that the other proposal fits in, then I must remind you that the title refers to ‘a proposed’ not ‘proposals’, which would tend to eliminate more than one presentation. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I always thought a study session was not the time for voting. What happened to the old idea that a proposal is presented at one meeting and voted upon at another?
I remain uneasy about the idea that this ‘item was properly agendized and voted on during the Study Session Meeting. (e mail RE: city council minutes 4/13/07). What is agendizing? The published ‘administrative action report and summary’ does not resemble the agenda, memorandum, and attachment presented to the public.
Perhaps if the populace had known that the ‘new arena a described by the CS&L study’ would be a meeting topic, more people would have attended. Evidence of secrecy and violations of the Open Meeting Law should be investigated.
Exercise your voting rights and vote against secrecy in government.
