Council votes to enter closed session, cites pending litigation under 21.51c

The City Council voted to enter a closed session after a councilmember moved to meet privately to discuss pending litigation and strategy, citing statute '21.51c.' The chair asked for the motion and the body approved it.

A staff member told the council, "I've reviewed the subject matter of this proposed closed session and I believe it's lawful under 21.51c due to the pending litigation and the fact that we're about to discuss strategy with the city council regarding that matter." That statement was the explicit legal justification recorded in the transcript.

Council members then discussed practical arrangements for pausing the public meeting. One councilmember asked for clarification about muting the meeting, turning off cameras and pausing the public feed before reconvening to finish business and adjourn. Staff noted a technical constraint: "we only have two hours worth of recording time," and participants discussed options including relying on audio only or ending the Zoom session and reconnecting later.

Speakers emphasized that the body must come back on the record when it reconvened to conduct any votes or take additional action so the public could hear what followed. The transcript records motions to "advise council to proceed as discussed in close session" and to adjourn; both motions were seconded and described as carried, but specific vote tallies and the names of movers/seconders were not recorded in the available transcript.

The transcript does not include a meeting date or a detailed roll-call vote; the record ends with participants closing the public portion of the meeting and preparing to pause or end the virtual connection. The council said it would return to the public record to complete any remaining votes and to adjourn.