Meeting canceled when agenda not posted

“I understand people's frustrations, as it's very frustrating for me too.”

Terri Jo Neff Special to the news-sun The delayed posting of an agenda led to last week's Cochise County Planning and Zoning Commission meeting being cancelled just hours before it was to be held. via San Pedro Valley News-Sun

[Mike Jackson]

Despite the official excuse (an employee forgot), several citizens, well before the legal deadline, reminded the county to post the agenda.
One person phoned the county on Thursday, October 4, and followed up at 1:43 p.m. next Monday with this email to the P&Z Department, Judy Anderson, and Supervisor Searle: "I was told last Thursday the agenda ... would be posted on the County's website on Friday morning. I left 2 messages Friday afternoon ...."
At 7:46 a.m. on Tuesday, October 9, another person emailed Judy Anderson and others "could you post the agenda ...? It still isn't up, and the meeting is tomorrow."
Wednesday morning, a citizen email to the county attorney wasn't answered, but an agenda was posted on the county website. At 9:12 a.m., that citizen emailed the county attorney "... the Open Meeting Law requires posting an agenda 24 hours before the meeting ... any action taken by the P&Z Commission tonight will be null and void... Does your office have any response or solution for this obvious problem?"
Again no answer, but at 1:28 p.m. another email went to Anderson and others: "There's a rumor going around that at the county P&Z Commission meeting tonight, a county employee will 'certify' that public notice of the meeting, including posting of the agenda, was lawful and in good faith. Surely the county attorney would be consulted before such a 'certification' was attempted, and no county attorney is so ignorant and incompetent as to recommend or allow such a 'certification.' Lawfulness and good faith are legal conclusions, not facts. Making conclusions is the job of a judge. Any other public employee can testify only to facts, not conclusions about lawfulness or good faith. Nor can an employee certify 'facts' that are obviously false -- such as an assertion that a notice posted at 7:20 a.m. was posted over 24 hours before 9 p.m. the same day...."
Again no answer, but about an hour later, P&Z canceled the meeting.
Yet Department head Anderson is quoted as saying only "an employee forgot to post the meeting notice." If only the P&Z Department could do its job as well as it ducks the facts and law, shows contempt for the public, and dodges responsibility.

[The MinuteMan]

That is Cochise County for you- pathetic.

[Pauly]

If they did not post the agenda (obviously) then cancelling the meeting is the correct thing to do. I believe by law they have to post it in advance. Had they held the meeting anyway it would have been improper and for not and if they made any decisions during that meeting they all would probably be null & void. I agree - they screwed up but at least they didn't compound the error.

[Buffalo Boo]

Eric C Fahrner wrote:

<quoted text>
Is that rumor confirmed? Are you alleging intentional misconduct based on it?

Actually, Dinky, he's quoting a Sierra Vista Herald/Bisbee Review article which appeared two days ago. I saw no allegation of misconduct, but merely sort of business-as-usual when I read it.
But then, your paranoia may differ.

[Buffalo Boo]

Sorry, Binky; I misread your quoted material. your question was valid. I have not heard that rumor, and can't imagine that anyone -- even in our local government zoo -- would try to make that fly.
My apologies.

[Mike Jackson]

The rumor was a genuine rumor, and it was consistent with the county's incredible twisting & turning when caught violating the Open Meeting Law in the past. Check the section on this subject at
http://littlebigdog.net/ccipra.htm

Not until about an hour before the meeting did someone announce that the meeting was canceled. Following the law would have been quick and easy, so nothing could have consumed the day except considering alternatives to following the law -- such as the one suggested in the rumor.

If the county wants to deny the rumor, perhaps the county will at the same time explain why it ignored all the red flags from citizens when there was still time to post notice, and explain what the county discussed all day before canceling the meeting.

[Mike Jackson]

Well, the county didn't answer when the rumor was forwarded to them. And the county hasn't explained what it was doing all day Tuesday instead of canceling the meeting as soon as the Open Meeting Law could no longer be complied with. If the county wants to end rumors, let the county just state the facts -- not just say "we forgot" even though the public was making sure that the county could NOT forget.

The issue is not the truth of a particular rumor; the issue is why Planning & Zoning doesn't do its job.

[Mike Jackson]

Update: sometime after 8:30 p.m. on October 26, the school posted notice of the 4th session of this hearing, to start at 8:30 p.m. on October 30. I kept a screen shot showing the 8:30 p.m. times, so if the agenda looks different when you visit the VUHS.net site, the agenda will have been changed after 7 a.m. October 30. So now the school has admitted that notice of the hearing belongs on the school website. That's an admission that notice should have been posted there before the hearing began, so that the school violated the Open Meeting Law, and all actions at this hearing are null and void. The violation is obvious, yet the school board persists in wasting taxpayer time and money. The notice finally posted adds that no demonstrations will be tolerated -- so you had better NOT show up at 8:30 p.m., the posted time, to show any displeasure with the idiocy of continuing.