Garrett,<br>(Someone please correct me if I am wrong) I don't think the mediation was brought by the DOE. They were one of the parties invited to the table. I believe it was Hawkins that initiated the mediation. With mediation, all parties have the opportunity to agree to the terms of the mediation, i.e. confidentiality. In most cases the terms are negotiable. That's why it is mediation, everyone is trying to get something out of the mediation process -usually a compromise. It would surprise me that if one party were to oppose one or more terms that it would kill the mediation.<br><br>Executive sessions -My opinion is that item f really allows a governing body to veil just about anything that can be covered under executive session as long as there is not a final vote because just about anything can "potentially" be subject to litigation. Is it the right thing to do? Not in my opinion. For the record though, I don't think Human Resource issues should be a matter of
public record.<br><br><b><i>Garrett Clevenger <garrettmc@verizon.net></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> Stephanie replied back to me this:<br><br>"There would not have been an agreement to discuss<br>with the public<br>because they had to sign the confidentiality agreement<br>prior to the<br>mediation."<br><br>I replied:<br><br>Do you know why they had to sign the confidentiality<br>agreement? Is that the mandate for any DOE<br>settlement?<br><br>She replied back:<br><br>"From what they said at the Council meeting, the<br>confidentiality<br>agreement was a requirement for participating in the<br>mediation."<br><br>My reply back to v2020 is that just because the<br>council people said it, doesn't mean it is true.<br><br>Does anybody know if the DOE mandates confidentiallity<br>of settlements?<br><br><br>Tom writes, also:<br><br>"Perhaps we should take a queue from our
neighbor to<br>the west"<br><br>I reply:<br><br>Sounds good to me. We have the camaras in place. <br>They should record ES's...<br><br><br>HB 3292 - DIGEST <br><br>Requires a governing body holding an executive session<br><br>under this act to make a verbatim audio recording of<br>the <br>complete executive session and retain the recording<br>for a <br>period of two years. Such recordings are public<br>records not <br>subject to public inspection and copying under chapter<br>42.56 <br>RCW except by court order as specified in this act, or<br>unless <br>authorized by the governing body. <br>Provides in an action under chapter 42.30.110 RCW <br>alleging a violation of the executive session<br>provisions in <br>this act, a party challenging the lawfulness of the<br>executive <br>session bears the burden of proof. <br>Provides if the party challenging the lawfulness of<br>the <br>executive session supports its allegation with<br>credible <br>evidence, supported by declaration
or affidavit, the<br>court <br>shall review the entire verbatim audio recording in<br>camera. <br>After such review, if the court finds that the<br>executive <br>session was not in compliance with the provisions of<br>this <br>chapter related to such session, it may order<br>disclosure of <br>only those portions of the verbatim audio recording of<br>the <br>executive session found not in compliance, subject to<br>such <br>other exemptions as may exist in law. The remainder of<br>the <br>verbatim audio recording found to comply with this<br>chapter <br>shall not be disclosed.<br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet, <br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <br> http://www.fsr.net <br> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>=======================================================<br></blockquote><br><BR><BR>Tom & Liz Ivie<p> 
<hr size=1>Looking for last minute shopping deals? <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping">
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.</a>