Local publisher urges commission to review executive-session use in contract talks

A Canton resident and publisher raised concerns during public comment about the city’s use of executive sessions for contract negotiations, urging the commission to review whether those closed meetings complied with law.

“This is Omar, 213 East First Street, owner, publisher,” the speaker said. He told the commission he could not always attend meetings and asked questions about multiple closed sessions held on Feb. 13 and Feb. 18 to discuss contractual negotiations with engineering firms. He asked whether there were separate contracts for four different companies, what firms were involved and what work the city would pay for.

Omar said he reviewed a South Florida case (which he dated to Feb. 20, 2007) and told the commission that case found using closed sessions to discuss contract negotiations with multiple companies could be improper. He said, according to his reading, ‘‘a motion for a closed session for the purpose of discussing contractual matters is insufficient basis for closed meetings’’ when the subject is entering into contracts with multiple firms and public notice is required. He said he would provide the commission a copy of the case and urged the body to read the law and ensure public meetings requirements are met.

The speaker framed his concern as an appeal for transparency and said many citizens had asked him whether the executive sessions and contract talks were being handled correctly. The meeting record does not show a formal response from the commission on the record, nor does it record any immediate action or referral to staff to review the matter.