Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Phoenix council debate over scheduling executive sessions spotlights open‑meeting concerns
Summary
Council debated whether placing ‘holds’ on executive-session dates pre‑authorizes closed meetings; public commenter Jeremy Thacker warned of potential open‑meeting violations and personal liability while city attorneys said the city sought and received legal guidance.
A routine agenda action to set future executive-session dates prompted a pointed exchange at Wednesday’s Phoenix City Council meeting about transparency and the limits of closed-door deliberations.
Councilwoman Rebecca Hernandez said she would vote no on the item and asked the city attorney for a written legal opinion on whether pre‑authorizing executive-session dates could violate Arizona’s open‑meeting statutes. “We have to decide on some really difficult and contentious items that impact the lives of people that live in this city. We should be making those decisions in public,” Hernandez said.
During public comment, Phoenix resident Jeremy Thacker, who identified himself as a plaintiff in a pending open‑meeting lawsuit, urged the council to reject the calendar‑setting motion, citing state law and warning that officials who participate in unlawful meetings can face civil penalties and attorney fees. “If those meetings later prove unlawful, each participant carries that risk,” Thacker said.
City Attorney Julie (surname not provided in the transcript) told the council staff had asked the attorney general’s office about a related open‑meeting issue last year and said the city believed its process was legally sufficient; she agreed to provide further clarification and to forward the relevant written opinion when available.
Council ultimately approved the schedule after clarifications in the public record. The exchange underscored ongoing tensions over confidentiality in contract and labor negotiations and council members’ interest in preserving public trust while allowing the city to handle sensitive legal or negotiation matters in executive session when statute permits.
