Don’t know if there is a connection or not, but shortly after Mark Fisher posted a long involved message on his well-read and very popular page, the agenda for tonight’s council meeting was amended to include another item , a discussion on OPMA, which is the Open Public Meetings Act.
Here’s the irony of the amended agenda item: discussion of the OPEN public meetings act will be in executive or CLOSED, session!
That’s all well and good, because it is within the law. But it does seem kind of silly that talking about being OPEN has to be done in EXECUTIVE or CLOSED session.
The state law is specific on what can be talked about in executive or closed sessions. It’s ok if the matter being discussed is one “in which the public body is or may become a party” or “matters falling within the attorney-client privilege,” or “if confidentiality is required in order for the attorney to exercise his ethical duties as a lawyer.”
That last part sounds a bit ironic as well. Does that mean that an attorney can only exercise his ethical duties as a lawyer” if it is kept confidential?
In the final analysis, it does make you wonder … Is the new Borough Attorney going to enter into the Executive Session to defend this new Orwellian rule of “Ask No Questions”
