Supervisors raise concerns about open meeting law enforcement, foresee legal challenge

Cochise County supervisors spent part of the work session discussing the county—s experience with Arizona—s open meeting law and whether some enforcement practices or interpretive expansions of the law should be challenged.

Chairman Frank Antonori and other members criticized portions of the statute and its enforcement as potentially overbroad. Antonori highlighted a provision that allows the attorney general or a county attorney to bring suit to require compliance with the open meeting law; he said that could be interpreted as placing legal officials in supervisory positions over elected legislative bodies. "This is placing the attorney general or the county attorney in supervisory position over the legislative body, which I think is a violation of the separation powers of the constitution," Antonori said.

Board members said they have seen instances they view as overreach, including interpretations that meeting-related cell-phone records or informal calls could be characterized as improper quorum contact. The supervisors expressed concern that interpretive expansions of the statute could be "weaponized" to impose fines, mandatory training or other penalties without a clear appeals process.

Several supervisors urged staff and counsel to review the statute and potential remedies. One supervisor asked how a board member might appeal an adverse determination, or what processes exist if the attorney general or county attorney pursues sanctions; staff said they would examine appeal mechanisms and the statute—s enforcement provisions and return with options.

Ending: The board directed staff and counsel to research the open meeting statute's enforcement provisions, appeal options, and potential legal pathways to challenge interpretations that the board believes exceed legislative intent, and to return findings to the board.