[Vision2020] Executive Sessions

[Tom Ivie]

I stand corrected.

Sunil Ramalingam <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:    .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma }   Garrett,

Mediations are always confidential.  They are efforts to reach settlements, and that cannot be done when parties believe that if they disclose information it will be used against them in future litigation.  The mediations I've attended have all involved the mediator assuring the parties that what they say won't leave the mediation. 

Sunil

> Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 21:56:34 -0800
> From: garrettmc at verizon.net
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] Executive Sessions
> 
> Stephanie replied back to me this:
> 
> "There would not have been an agreement to discuss
> with the public
> because they had to sign the confidentiality agreement
> prior to the
> mediation."
> 
> I replied:
> 
> Do you know why they had to sign the confidentiality
> agreement?  Is that the mandate for any DOE
> settlement?
> 
> She replied back:
> 
> "From what they said at the Council meeting, the
> confidentiality
> agreement was a requirement for participating in the
> mediation."
> 
> My reply back to v2020 is that just because the
> council people said it, doesn't mean it is true.
> 
> Does anybody know if the DOE mandates confidentiallity
> of settlements?
> 
> 
> Tom writes, also:
> 
> "Perhaps we should take a queue from our neighbor to
> the west"
> 
> I reply:
> 
> Sounds good to me.  We have the camaras in place. 
> They should record ES's...
> 
> 
> HB 3292 - DIGEST 
> 
> Requires a governing body holding an executive session
> 
> under this act to make a verbatim audio recording of
> the 
> complete executive session and retain the recording
> for a 
> period of two years. Such recordings are public
> records not 
> subject to public inspection and copying under chapter
> 42.56 
> RCW except by court order as specified in this act, or
> unless 
> authorized by the governing body. 
> Provides in an action under chapter 42.30.110 RCW 
> alleging a violation of the executive session
> provisions in 
> this act, a party challenging the lawfulness of the
> executive 
> session bears the burden of proof. 
> Provides if the party challenging the lawfulness of
> the 
> executive session supports its allegation with
> credible 
> evidence, supported by declaration or affidavit, the
> court 
> shall review the entire verbatim audio recording in
> camera. 
> After such review, if the court finds that the
> executive 
> session was not in compliance with the provisions of
> this 
> chapter related to such session, it may order
> disclosure of 
> only those portions of the verbatim audio recording of
> the 
> executive session found not in compliance, subject to
> such 
> other exemptions as may exist in law. The remainder of
> the 
> verbatim audio recording found to comply with this
> chapter 
> shall not be disclosed.
> 
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================


Tom & Liz Ivie
       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080214/50dddc10/attachment-0001.html