[Vision2020] (no subject)

[Jeff Harkins]

Sue - it was not only imminent litigation, it was actual litigation - 
Moscow had already filed suit on the water transfer.  Fits perfectly!

And Moscow was impacting the ability of a sovereign state (WA) from 
pursuing their economic development plans.  Again, fits perfectly.

Now, let's move on to something substantive - the actual agreement 
signed.  What are your problems with the accord reached?

At 01:14 PM 2/14/2008, you wrote:
>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: <mailto:jeffh at moscow.com>Jeff Harkins
>To: <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>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;
>
>
>----------
>=======================================================
>  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
>=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080214/d2270ca7/attachment-0001.html