Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meeting Law Training topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney briefs Carefree commissioners on open-meeting law and Robert's Rules
Summary
Attorney Nick Cook reviewed Arizona open-meeting law, executive-session limits, conflict-of-interest rules and the town's use of Robert's Rules as meeting guidance, answering commissioners' procedural questions.
Attorney Nick Cook gave a training presentation to the Planning & Zoning Commission and Development Review Board on Arizona open-meeting law and how the town uses Robert's Rules of Order as a guideline for running meetings.
Cook cited ARS 38-431 (as quoted in the presentation) and summarized the principal obligations: meetings of a public body are public; legal action by a public body must occur in public meetings; the public has a right to attend and record proceedings, although the statute does not itself create a universal right to participate except where public hearings or agenda call-to-the-public provisions apply. He told commissioners that one-way communications that reach a quorum can constitute a meeting and risk violating the open-meeting law, and he advised staff communications with members are permitted but that members should avoid serial communications that could aggregate into a quorum outside a public forum.
Cook explained executive sessions are limited, confidential discussions with the attorney or staff identified on the agenda; there may be no voting in executive session. He summarized public-records implications: communications about public business, even on private devices, may be subject to retention. On conflicts of interest, he said state law requires disclosure on the record and recusal where a commissioner or a relative has a substantial interest in a matter; the statute’s rules include examples of remote interests and thresholds for disclosure.
On Robert's Rules, Cook said the town follows the manual as a baseline for common-sense meeting procedure (motions, seconds, amendments) but will not apply every technical rule strictly. Commissioners asked clarifying questions about when informal discussion is allowed, whether a motion is required to start discussion on an agenda item, and how amendments to motions should be handled; Cook answered that the chair controls recognition and that items agendized for discussion may be discussed but that clear motions and restatements by the chair help the public and the minutes track actions.
No formal board action was taken; the session was informational. Cook offered his contact information for future legal questions and suggested commissioners run substantive proposals they may have through staff to determine if a public hearing or agendized action is necessary.
The board had a number of procedural exchanges with Cook about email/text communications, the timing of when a past decision may return to the board, and best practices to avoid perception problems when multiple commissioners meet informally.
