Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the MOU topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stamford boards debate MOU vs. informal protocol; legal review urged
Summary
Participants warned that detailed memorandums of understanding can create binding contracts and recommended low-cost legal review or a nonbinding scheduling protocol to resolve shared-use disputes without chilling collaboration.
Speakers at the Stamford joint meeting explored whether a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) or a less-formal scheduling protocol is the right tool for managing shared use of the municipal building.
Researcher (S8) cautioned that "any document that we sign... if it has the elements of contract, it's a legal contract," noting the three elements often cited in contract law: specific terms, agreement between parties and consideration. Several board members said they prefer a short, practical protocol (who mows, who plows, how to request use) and only to seek legal review if the terms become specific enough to create binding obligations.
Chair (S2) said the boards could outline responsibilities (lawn care, snow removal, heating costs) in a way that preserves flexibility; others worried an inflexible contract could harm future collaboration. Multiple participants agreed to explore whether supervisory-union resources or other low-cost legal-review options exist before drafting a binding agreement.
The meeting ended without a decision to draft a final MOU; the boards left open the option of preparing a draft protocol for review and obtaining legal counsel if necessary.
