Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meeting Procedure Nullification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Baker council voids March 3 special meeting findings and reschedules executive session on personnel matter
Summary
Citing alleged procedural inadequacies, the Baker City Council voted to declare findings of a March 3 special meeting null and void and to re-notice the executive session on the regular May 27 agenda to address a personnel issue involving Attorney Farr.
The Baker City Council voted to declare the findings of its March 3 special meeting null and void and to place a re‑noticed executive session on the May 27 regular meeting agenda to revisit a personnel matter involving Attorney Farr.
Councilmembers said research and attorney consultations revealed “inadequacies” in how the March 3 meeting was noticed and how public comment was handled before and after an executive session. Councilmember Rochelle Dunn moved to declare the March 3 meeting’s findings null and void, and the motion carried.
Why it matters: Voiding the March 3 actions effectively pauses any formal actions that stemmed from that meeting and requires the council to rehear the matter in a properly noticed forum. Council members emphasized clarity in future agendas and public notices so the public understands the reason for executive sessions.
What the council decided: After declaring the March 3 meeting null and void, the council voted to place the re‑noticed executive session on the regular council agenda for May 27. At the meeting a council member stated the executive session’s stated subject will be a personnel issue involving Attorney Farr. The council explicitly directed that the May 27 meeting be a regular meeting agenda item (not a special meeting) and said the personnel matter would be spelled out on the agenda so there is no confusion about purpose or scope.
Procedure and access: Council members discussed public‑comment timing and reiterated that, when an executive session is convened, the council must make clear why it is meeting in closed session. One councilmember asked whether a remote/virtual attendance option would be permitted for that future meeting; council staff noted the May 27 executive session would require physical presence, and that attorney attendance at that session is expected.
Provenance: The nullification motion, roll call and subsequent motion to re‑notice the executive session were taken during the New Business portion of the council meeting; the council then set the May 15 audit work session and confirmed the May 27 re‑noticed executive session during the same meeting.
