Laserfiche WebLink
public bodies do not include subcommittees unless the subcommittees are holding hearings <br /> making policy or taking formal action on behalf of their parent body. So with what has <br /> transpired with regard to change orders this has been outside the bounds of the law. <br /> Jack noted the act states if subcommittees are holding hearings, making policy, or taking formal <br /> action on behalf of their parent body this would fall under the Open Meeting act. You are <br /> required to give public notice and have an agenda for the public to know what is to be <br /> addressed. So on change orders if the committee does not have a public notice or an agenda <br /> they cannot go ahead with a meeting. If the board is involved in major construction projects <br /> they could schedule a meeting every week to cut down on lag time. The committee did the <br /> reasonable thing to keep the project moving and keep on schedule but the Open Meetings Act <br /> is unforgiving, so the county board could meet every week while working on projects. <br /> Arnold questioned if someone else could be designated to make those decisions <br /> Mr. Zitterkopf read 84 1408 "Every meeting of a public body shall be open to the public in order <br /> that citizens may exercise their democratic privilege of attending and speaking at meeting of <br /> public bodies." <br /> "84-1414 any motion resolution rule regulation ordinance or formal action of a public body made <br /> or taken in violation of the Open Meetings Act shall be declared void by the district court if the <br /> suit is commenced within 120 days of the meeting of the public body. Any motion resolution, <br /> rule regulation, ordinance or formal action of a public body made in violation of the Open <br /> Meetings Act shall be voidable by the district court if the suit is commenced more than 120 days <br /> after but within one year of the meeting. Any citizen may file suit in the district court of the <br /> county in which the public body meets for the purpose of requiring compliance with or <br /> preventing violations of the Open Meetings act." He also noted that the court may order <br /> payment of reasonable attorney's fees and court costs to a successful plaintiff. <br /> Finally Mr. Zitterkopf read the following "any member of public body who knowingly violates or <br /> conspires to violate or remains at a meeting knowing that the public body is in violation of any <br /> provisions of the Open Meeting Act shall be guilty of a Class IV Misdemeanor for a first offense <br /> and a Class III misdemeanor for a second or subsequent offense." He would not be eager to <br /> charge and with what they have been told he does not want to police them. They need to work <br /> together and arrive at decisions instead of arguing. <br /> Richardson stated that she is a strong supporter and there were no intentions to violate the <br /> rules. <br /> Mr. Zitterkopf stated you cannot change the rules. <br /> Lancaster stated that she respects that Jack came forward with this most county attorney's <br /> would recluse themselves from this. <br /> Richardson noted that there needs to be a little more cooperation and sharing of information <br /> would be appreciated. She also noted that she has not contacted the state auditor regarding <br /> this. <br /> Lanfear stated that there was no intent to violate the rules and looking ahead there may always <br /> be construction going on. Discussion was held to hold weekly meetings. <br /> 11 <br />