Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Governance Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washington County supervisors debate legality of Jan. 27 recess meeting; minutes approved after heated exchange
Summary
Board members disputed whether actions taken at a Jan. 27 recessed meeting—including interviews and an apparent hiring—were properly noticed; county attorney said agenda for primary meeting carries into a recessed meeting but recommended research; minutes were ultimately approved amid objections.
Washington County Board of Supervisors members spent an extended portion of their Feb. 10 meeting disputing whether actions taken at a Jan. 27 recessed meeting were properly noticed and therefore legal. The dispute centered on interviews held during the recess, a subsequent hiring motion, and how those events were recorded in the minutes.
The exchange began when a board member said she had not received an agenda for the Jan. 27 meeting and objected that interviews and a motion to hire a road manager had been taken without formally amending the agenda. "We did do an interview, and it took almost an hour… President McGee made the motion to hire someone," she said, adding that no amendment to the recessed meeting agenda had been circulated to supervisors beforehand.
County Attorney Griffin responded that, as a general rule, "the primary meeting's agenda carries over into the recessed meeting," and that if the interview was on the agenda, the board could take subsequent personal actions related to it. He also said he would research the specific circumstances and provide a written recommendation on whether any actions should be rescinded or otherwise addressed.
Members continued to press the legal and procedural questions. One supervisor said she objected to action taken when another supervisor was absent: "I objected… because Bishop Benson was not here. It was unfair." Attorney Griffin repeated that he did not have authority to block board action but said he would research the legal implications and report back.
After the debate the board moved to approve the minutes from Jan. 21 and Jan. 27. A motion to approve the minutes carried after a voice/sign vote; at least one supervisor recorded a nay on the vote approving the minutes. The clerk and board members also noted they would correct vote indicators in the minutes where an individual had been recorded as voting both "aye" and "nay." The board voted to approve the expenditures report for January and accepted an EMPG reimbursement totaling $37,851.64, both by majority vote.
Why it matters: The dispute illustrates recurring governance questions for local boards—how recessed meetings are noticed and recorded, what actions are permitted without explicit agenda amendments, and how differences in practice can prompt legal review. The attorney’s pledge to research the matter means the county may receive formal legal guidance at a later meeting.
The board directed the county attorney to research the procedural and statutory questions raised and return with an opinion; no change to past minutes beyond clerical corrections was ordered at the Feb. 10 session.
Ending: Supervisors said they would correct obvious clerical errors in the minutes and scheduled follow-up with the county attorney. The board moved on after the attorney committed to provide written guidance on the legal issues raised.
