The plot thickens.

[donner]

When I was on a school board, the board could go into what was called "executive session" where everyone was out of the room except the school board and the school superintendent. I would think that if their situation was that they were in an "executive session," it is NOT considered a public meeting, and if that were the case here, the recording might very well be illegal.

Now, if this occurred AFTER the meeting was done and deemed as closed, they were still in a public place and the recording might be legitimate, although I thought that such recordings in Oklahoma required at least one participant to know of the recording. But, with the reporter out of the room and his recorder in the room, that one is questionable.

At least in Mississippi, if they want to go to executive session they have to declare so publicly during the regular meeting and cite specific reasons (matters dealing with specific workers, legal matters that require confidentiality or about the city's exposure, etc.). I think they typically go to executive session if they decide they need to fire an individual. But, those are the only matters they can discuss. Anything outside that and they are required to return to a regular (public) meeting.

i think there will be more that comes out about this. It will only take one participant to decide to come clean and share about all the matters discussed outside of the public view.

 

[Dumpstick]

Terrible take. Just terrible.

I didn't say I agreed with the conversation. I stated the people on the recording said nothing illegal, at least AFAIK.

The only illegality question so far is about the recording.

Go shake your finger at someone else.

 

[GC7]

I didn't say I agreed with the conversation. I stated the people on the recording said nothing illegal, at least AFAIK.

The only illegality question so far is about the recording.

Go shake your finger at someone else.

 

[TerryMiller]

At least in Mississippi, if they want to go to executive session they have to declare so publicly during the regular meeting and cite specific reasons (matters dealing with specific workers, legal matters that require confidentiality or about the city's exposure, etc.). I think they typically go to executive session if they decide they need to fire an individual. But, those are the only matters they can discuss. Anything outside that and they are required to return to a regular (public) meeting.

i think there will be more that comes out about this. It will only take one participant to decide to come clean and share about all the matters discussed outside of the public view.

Correct in our case as well. We could discuss personnel matters and such in executive session, but we couldn't vote on anything decided in the session until we declared the session to be over and allowed "visitors" back into the room. Our executive session was also usually already placed on the published agenda.

 

[edl]

Hahhhaaaa! I have often said something very similar about myself!

Seriously, what we have here is several legally elected office holders having a conversation. If the people of that area elect them, that is what the people want.

As far as I know, the elected officials have done nothing illegal.

But there is certainly many folks saying they should be stripped of office. Sounds sort of high-handed to me.

On the other hand, there is some talk that the recording was illegal, although if it was indeed during a Commissioners meeting than I don't know about any illegality of recording a public meeting.

There is still a good bit we don't know.

I am not convinced that them being in office is what the voters want. They vote in North Korea also, and I doubt they really want their dictator……..

 

[rickm]

The problem is most voters only go by what the candiate tells them while he is running for office and people wont do any research to find out what the person is really like

 

[Beau]

13/52...