[Vision2020] Executive Sessions

[Garrett Clevenger]

Sue asks:

"Well e involves competition with other public bodies
and f involves imminant litigation, so how do those
fit? "



I think this portion of "(f)" may be the justification
for the ES's:

"...controversies not yet being litigated but
imminently likely to be litigated."

It's possible that who ever lost the hearing with the
Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) would then
pursue litigation.

I believe that ES's are an option, not mandatory,
though perhaps in this situation they had no choice.

Also, Stephanie emailed me this:

"The judge who was running the mediation set the
requirement {confidentiality} which, according to the
City Attorney, is common.  I can't know that DOE was
actually running the mediation, they were a
participant along with the City of Colton as well."

Garrett



Well e involves competition with other public bodies
and f involves imminant litigation, so how do those
fit?  Certainly none of the other options do, but even
so, looks like a stretch to me.

Sue H


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeff Harkins 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 7:13 PM
  Subject: [Vision2020] (no subject)


    To those interested, it would appear that items e
and f of the state statute for executive sessions
would be applicable.



    (e)  To consider preliminary negotiations
involving matters of 


    trade or commerce in which the governing body is
in competition with 


    governing bodies in other states or nations;


    (f)  To communicate with legal counsel for the
public agency to 


    discuss the legal ramifications of and legal
options for pending 


    litigation, or controversies not yet being
litigated but imminently likely to be


    litigated. The mere presence of legal counsel at
an executive 


    session does not satisfy this requirement;