Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Attorney Search topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tucson City Council moves into executive session to interview final city attorney candidates; follow-up set for Sept. 24
Summary
At a special study session on Monday, September 22 (year not specified in the transcript), the Tucson City Council voted to enter executive session to interview final applicants for the city attorney position and scheduled a follow-up executive meeting for Wednesday, September 24 at 1:00 p.m.
Unidentified Speaker 1 opened a special study session on Monday, September 22 and identified Item 1 as an executive session. Unidentified Speaker 2 stated the item involved "interviews of final applicants for the position of city attorney" and cited a state statute in support of holding the executive session (the transcript reads: "ARS section 38 dash 4 31.0383 and 84").
The council moved to go into executive session on Item 1. Unidentified Speaker 2 moved "so moved," another participant seconded and three vocal "Aye" responses were recorded; the chair then said, "Motion carries." The body later made a separate motion to return to the study session and recorded vocal approval, then debated proceeding to discuss Item 2.
On Item 2, Unidentified Speaker 2 moved that the council "proceed to discuss in executive session, Allow the city attorney process to continue and make our decision, hopefully, by the end of the week." The motion was seconded, members responded vocally in favor, and the chair again declared the motion carried.
Unidentified Speaker 1 announced that the executive session was adjourned and scheduled a follow-up meeting: the mayor and council will meet again in executive session on Wednesday, September 24 at 1:00 p.m. for the final review of the applicant, with the expectation of selecting the next city attorney.
The transcript does not include full names or formal titles for the individuals who made or seconded the motions; voices are labeled in the record only as unidentified speakers. The statute citation as transcribed in the meeting is unclear; the body cited state open-meeting authority to justify the executive session but the exact statutory reference could not be unambiguously read in the transcript.
No substantive debate, public testimony, or details about the applicants were included in the transcript. The meeting transitioned to the regular session after the scheduling announcement.
