Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner sues county over May 26 closed session; motion to release records fails and liaison assignments changed
Summary
Commissioner Paul Cozzens said he has filed suit alleging the May 26 closed session exceeded permitted personnel‑matter scope and moved to release the record with redactions; the motion received no second. Because of the pending litigation, commissioners reassigned two liaison duties.
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings Act topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Paul Cozzens told the Iron County Commission on June 8 that he has filed a lawsuit challenging a closed session held at the May 26 meeting, arguing the discussion exceeded the limited statutory scope allowed for personnel matters. Cozzens said he learned of parts of the closed session while traveling and called into the meeting; he said the discussion included topics he viewed as beyond permissible closed‑session subjects.
Cozzens moved that the commission authorize release of the May 26 closed‑session record to the fullest extent allowed by law, with redactions limited to the employee’s identity and personally identifying information. No commissioner seconded the motion. County Clerk Jonathan T. Whittaker read a prepared statement regarding the matter on the record. Commissioner Michael Bleak declined to comment on the pending litigation; he said he did not second the motion because the issue is now in the courts. The motion therefore failed for lack of a second.
As an administrative measure related to the dispute, the commission voted to reassign liaison responsibilities for two offices. Commissioner Michael Bleak moved—Chair Kenneth Robinson seconded—that the Assessor’s Office liaison be assigned to Commissioner Kenneth Robinson and the Treasurer’s Office liaison be assigned to Commissioner Michael Bleak; the change was approved.
Cozzens characterized his action as a statutory challenge to how closed‑session authority was used; commissioners said they would defer to the courts on the broader legal question. The record does not show a formal commission response on the factual allegations beyond the failed motion and clerk’s statement; the dispute remains subject to court review.
