Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Porte city attorney warns commissioners against 'daisy‑chain' deliberations under Open Meetings Act
Summary
City attorney briefed the commission on the Open Meetings Act: required agenda posting timelines, scope of a 'meeting,' executive-session rules, and conflict‑of‑interest triggers that require affidavit filing and abstention; he warned serial communications that together form a quorum can be a criminal offense.
City Attorney Clark (S3) told commissioners that the Open Meetings Act requires transparency in deliberations and carries specific procedural obligations: agendas must be posted in advance, public hearings must be noticed, and executive sessions require stated grounds when used. He emphasized a quorum for the nine‑member commission is five and that the act now requires agendas to be posted at least three business days before a meeting.
Clark also explained conflict-of-interest rules under state law. A member with a substantial ownership interest in property at issue (statutory examples discussed) must file a conflict affidavit and abstain from the vote; local bylaws may require the member to leave the dais and not participate in deliberations. He warned commissioners about serial communications that could form a quorum by design — commonly called a “daisy chain” — and said knowingly participating in such a series with intent to reach a collective decision can be a misdemeanor carrying fines or jail time.
Commissioners asked practical questions about repeated pre‑meeting discussion and whether the commission’s custom of discussing items before motions was improper; Clark and staff outlined the line between asking factual questions and engaging in deliberative discussions outside a posted meeting.
