Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge O'Hare presses office to remove inaccurate agenda language; commissioners disagree
Summary
Judge Tim O'Hare urged staff to stop publishing agenda item descriptions that the court concluded misstated facts about recent election mail‑ballot statistics; several commissioners pushed back, calling the item an attempt to silence policy questions and briefings from elected members.
Tension over how the County posts agenda language surfaced during the April 14 meeting after the judge challenged a prior item whose phrasing he said misstated election data.
Judge Tim O’Hare told the court he would enforce the adopted agenda policy giving the county administrator discretion to edit item titles and descriptions so they are not factually misleading. “I would ask that you make sure inaccurate and misleading things like that don't show back up on the agenda,” he said, referencing a prior briefing description that asserted unusually high mail‑ballot rejection and related problems that the elections administrator subsequently said were misread.
Opposition from several commissioners: Commissioner Alisa Simmons and others objected to constraining briefing requests from elected officials. “Briefing items are government,” Simmons said, arguing that commissioners routinely order staff briefings on topics ranging from juvenile detention to jail deaths and should not be told their briefing descriptions are improper. She called the judge’s comments an attempt to avoid accountability: “This is all about avoiding accountability for passing bad policies,” she said.
Why it matters: The debate touched on local transparency and on the boundaries between staff control over agenda wording and elected officials’ prerogatives to place items on the public docket. The court previously adopted a written agenda management policy giving the county administrator authority to edit item language; the legal opinion the court has relied on says the administrator may make such edits but not remove statutory rights to bring an item forward.
What’s next: Commissioners and the county administrator agreed to follow the existing rule and to use judgment on item descriptions; several commissioners asked for no change that would curtail legitimate briefing requests. The issue is likely to reappear as commissioners press staff for briefings on hot‑button local topics.
Ending: The court did not adopt a new formal rule at the meeting; members signaled they will rely on the administrator’s discretion and court practice when crafting and approving future agendas.
