tfa notes there no listing on the following agenda specifically for “Public Comment” nor “Executive Session”. Can such occurrences be construed as a violations of the Public’s right to participate?
Please view the video at the following You.tube link: https://youtu.be/mNvcO-eDg6A
Expandable Google docs link follows: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IMfVy6feXUeSfb8yMDPMo3cIxSrsJxOQ/view?usp=drivesdk
Yo millah did ya ever stop ta think if you n ur clerk did ur jobs, we the people, wouldn’t even hafta come to this site? We’d just go to the town site. You know the one that hasn’t been updated in a year and 1\2? Do ya ever take responsibility?
What must an officer due to close a meeting?
Meeting closures are at the discretion of the presiding officer. Before closing a meeting, the presiding officer must explain in open session the reasons for closing the meeting and must also explain generally each item the body intends to discuss in private before closing the meeting.
The presiding officer must also determine that privacy interests clearly outweigh public disclosure before the meeting can be closed. The right of privacy encompasses delicate matters such as medical or family issues or matters in which an employee’s performance will be criticized (excluding employees vested with public trust, as discussed supra). The Supreme Court has made it clear that there is no blanket exemption from the right to know for discussion of personnel matters or records. Missoula County Public Schools v. Bitterroot Star, 378 Mont. 451, 345 P.3d 1035.
An entity may not close a meeting to discuss personnel matters, then move on to other business while in closed session.
Individuals may waive their rights to privacy and allow meetings to remain open, even when personnel matters are being discussed. A public entity may assert the right of privacy on behalf of an individual, but it is always prudent to consult the individual in advance of the meeting to see whether they wish to waive the right.
This was located at this website:
http://montanafoi.org/open-meetings.php
You can check with your attorney. Peter Michael Meloy is a very reputable, well known Montana attorney. In fact I would definitely advise you, as a council to take the time to actually seriously read that entire website. While you’re at it you might check into impeaching the Mayor!
Employee complaints is not a viable reason for closing a meeting, nor does employee complaints violates one’s privacy. Especially if those complaints are aimed at the public. The public has the right to defend themselves. Not to mention employee complaints was not listed on the agenda nor was executive session. Jann is an employee vested with public trust. So, it’s apparent the Town Council has violated the public’s constitutional rights once again.
The Mayor has once again preformed an illegal action.
Employee complaints is too broad of term, could be anything from sexual harassment from a council member to someone said ‘I was fat’ to ‘I haven’t received overtime pay’. Not all warrant executive session meeting status. This is way too vague to be having executive session meeting. Does anyone know how long said meeting was? If it was fifteen or thirty minutes, I would definitely question the validity given the explanation of employee complaints! If there was serious issue, why was this meeting not posted on the agenda? Why was the attorney not there? The Mayor is responsible for oversight and following Montana annotated code and yet she chose to run amuck and the Council followed right behind! Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest!
I got some paperwork you should check out. This illegal meeting is child’s play compared to the President of the Council executing an undated 2.5 million dollar contract. A lawyer’s certification with a whited out date and another one written over the top of it. A mayor that was paid to park equipment on his property is a conflict of interest as is the President of the Council receiving a certified alley with a protective covenant in his deed.
Terry, add the barley field fiasco to the list! Did you know Anderson moved into a house condemned by ??? Does it sound right that a mayor can take ownership of a condemned house? Particularly when the bank of bridger is involved and he’s on the board of directors at that bank? Miller was going to look into all of this but now blames the past for present problems?? Her’s is a sweep it all under the rug, don’t fix it administration.
You have my attention! Is there a paper trail (clerk and recorder) or a condemnation order by the County sanitarian? Or some act of condemnation by Fromberg Town Hall? I have heard that, but never researched how Anderson got the property. I also heard Brenda opened the sealed bids but I need paperwork! Everything I talked about I have the documents to back them up.
Will be in touch. City hall can’t find sh××. You watch it happen before your eyes and no One saw a thing. More of Miller spewing how this will be looked into if elected. There are a lot of people who know about this! The documentation is out there some place.