Joe Estes, Nogales city attorney, led a roughly two‑hour training session on Arizona's open‑meeting laws, executive‑session confidentiality and council–manager responsibilities, telling the City Council that the statutory aim is ‘‘openness in government transparency’’ and that any uncertainty should be resolved in favor of public access.

The presentation, required after an Attorney General inquiry, reviewed what constitutes a public meeting, quorum rules, adequate agenda notice, permitted and prohibited uses of executive session, recordkeeping for executive sessions, and the risks of serial or "reply‑all" communications among council members. Estes emphasized that executive sessions are confidential, that minutes or recordings of executive sessions must be kept and can be subpoenaed by oversight authorities, and that actions taken in violation of the open‑meeting law are void.

Why this matters: Council members repeatedly asked for concrete guidance about practical pitfalls they encounter — group chats, forwarding materials, interactions with developers or interest groups, and what to say to the media — and Estes gave repeated procedural guidance intended to reduce future AG complaints. The training also covered ethics and conflicts of interest, including which family relationships or financial stakes create legally disqualifying interests and which are treated as remote.

Most important guidance and examples given during the training included: city business must be discussed in a publicly noticed meeting when a quorum is present; council members should avoid two‑way or serial communications intended to deliberate outside an agenda; social‑media posts and group messages can create public‑record and open‑meeting issues; and certain outside committee or advisory groups called for by the mayor or council fall under the open‑meeting statute.

Estes told the council that executive sessions may include outside participants "reasonably necessary" to accomplish the session's purposes but that everyone in an executive session receives an admonition that the discussion is confidential. He added that the Attorney General tends to emphasize education first but that repeat or intentional violations expose officials to civil penalties and, in some cases, criminal charges.

Council members used the training to probe practical matters: whether retreats held outside the city are permissible (yes, if properly noticed and made reasonably accessible), how to handle group texts and "reply all" (avoid replying to all), whether elected officials may speak with the media about items coming to council (they may but should avoid advocating a position outside a noticed meeting), and the effect of past AG findings on earlier council actions (actions taken in violation of the open‑meeting law can be void). Estes recommended that the council publish agendas with adequate detail and consider yearly or post‑election refreshers for new members.

The session also included an overview of the council‑manager form of government, explaining the manager's role as the professional executive responsible for day‑to‑day operations and the council's role in setting policy, goals and the budget. Estes and council members discussed how the manager and mayor typically coordinate agendas and how the council should refer personnel concerns to the manager rather than directing staff individually.

The training concluded with a Q&A on conflicts of interest and gift/bribery prohibitions. Estes advised erring on the side of recusal when a member doubts impartiality, and noted that municipalities commonly adopt written nepotism and ethics policies to supplement statutory provisions.

Council reaction: Members asked for copies of statutes and municipal policy templates, and requested follow‑up materials and a written summary of the issues raised. City staff agreed to circulate materials and to document that the mandatory training was completed as required by the Attorney General.