Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedona commissioners receive refresher on open meetings and conflict-of-interest rules
Summary
Attorney Kurt Christiansen reviewed Arizona open meeting law, when commissioners may recuse themselves and limits on informal conversations among members at a Sedona Historic Preservation Commission meeting.
Kurt Christiansen, a legal advisor to Sedona’s boards, told the Historic Preservation Commission on March 10 that Arizona’s open meeting and conflict-of-interest rules require care when commissioners discuss agenda items outside public meetings.
Christiansen said the state’s public-meeting law requires meetings of public bodies to be open and that “all legal action of public bodies shall occur during a public meeting.” He told commissioners the law is to be construed in favor of openness where there is doubt.
The presentation summarized several persistent compliance issues for small commissions: quorum rules, the danger of “hub-and-spoke” communications, using staff as a conduit for views expressed outside a public meeting, and when an abstention is allowed. Christiansen emphasized that an abstention on an agenda item is generally permitted only when a commissioner has an actual conflict of interest.
“Any time anyone wants to abstain from something through, in your case, through a conflict of interest, then you’re just supposed to announce it ahead of time and then not participate at all in the discussion,” Christiansen said. He described typical recusal practice—step off the dais, take a seat in the audience and do not try to influence other commissioners.
Christiansen also reviewed the hierarchy of law that governs the commission’s duties—constitutional law, state statutes, local code and the commission’s operating rules—and urged commissioners to consult the city attorney’s office when in doubt. He noted the state civil penalty for open-meeting violations and explained that intentional conflict-of-interest violations can have criminal consequences under Arizona law.
Commissioners asked practical questions about site visits, small work groups and what to do when several members attend the same conference. Christiansen said a work group of three members would constitute a quorum and must be announced; smaller site-visit teams of two members can meet informally but should avoid deliberations that would affect a later formal action. He also advised that if a quorum of commissioners will attend an outside event, the commission should post a notice that a quorum is anticipated and indicate that no legal action is expected.
Chair Nate Myers and staff liaison Donna (last name not specified in the record) confirmed that the city’s recording and minute procedures satisfy the open meeting statutory requirements and reminded commissioners that the city attorney’s office will provide written opinions on conflicts when requested.
The training concluded with a reminder that the commission’s handbook and the Land Development Code set out the commission’s substantive duties—historic landmark designation, district designation, economic hardship review and certificates of appropriateness or no effect—and that the handbook may need periodic updates.
