Update @1930 HRS, 6/17.
I have just retrieved an unsolicited e-mail from Councilwoman Hase in which she assured me that no meeting of the four councilmen who are co-signatories which would have been a violation of the Open Meetings Act ever occurred. It seems entirely likely to me that being aware of the potential for this move by Bird or on his behalf, they would have gone to great lengths to insure that no more than two of them dicussed the matter together at any one time. That would of course have been quite easy to do.
9 comments:
I wonder if the District Attorney can get this done correctly. These people are destroying St. Marys, one letter at a time. What happens if the D.A. finds they indeed violated the open meeting act?
Don't know for sure, but I would be surprized if such a violation rose to the level of a felony. I doubt the penalties are terribly severe. Any readers know for sure?
Found this on TOPIX:
"If they are found to have violated the Georgia Sunshine Law by meeting and acting in secret without notice to the public they may be found guilty of a misdemeanor, fined not more than $500 each and be required to pay all legal expenses. IN ADDITION, THEY MAY BE SUBJECT TO RECALL."
That is probably accurate as I suspect that the poster is an actual attorney. Recall is of course not going to happen. The hurdles you have to clear to succeed in a recall action are way too high.
What a despicable sand-box fight this is becoming - and the end result will only be the complete corrosion of St. Marys (already fragile) faith in our town's "leaders".
It wasn't Greg Bird who filed this complaint.
Jay you are one of the most astute bloggers. However you always seem to take Hases word on ANY topic. Why is this?
I would expect her to say exactly what she is now saying. She is peddling the airport for Sea Island via Camden Partnership..
Many are saying she was so frustrated that she could'nt nail Bird that she crafted the letter immediately following the meeting on City letterhead. She was furious that the city Attorney did'nt support her opinion. Her and council followers all signed in the same location. This was done as a show of faith to Sea Island and Camden Partnership that the gig was'nt up. Now to cover her holiness she is saying something totally different.
Its amazing how she is so holy on liquor sales/stores but has no problem fabricating stories to cover her ass.
"they would have gone to great lengths to insure that no more than two of them dicussed the matter together at any one time."
So they all agreed NOT to meet at the same time to sign, or they all agreed to SAY they did'nt meet at the same time.
These four are so focused on giving this airport to Sea Island. The more they talk the more I wonder what are they receiving in return.
Note that I did not say that I thought they complied with the SPIRIT fo the law. However, for a de facto violation to have occurred, they would have to have run afoul of the letter of the law. Suoppose Deborah Hase was the "rign leader," as I imagine she was. Does anyone actually think that she is not clever enough to have skirted an actual violation? If I were doing it, I would simly call the other three onthe phone,seriatim. It would have been a simple matter to arrange meetings of no more than two at a tiime to sign the thing. That may not have happened, but I would be more surprise that they did violate the law than not. Think about it. This reaction from Bord was perfectly predictable which is why it is way more likely than not that Hase anticpate dthat and got around it.
Given that Bird so manifestly does have a conflict of interest - hell, his whole candidacy was a conflict of interest intended to do nothing but serve his business interests - and the understandable frustration of the four with the nutlessness of the city's own ethics investigators, I can certainly empathize with the motivation to take it higher, even if they are probably barking up the wrong tree.
Well "CONGRATS" to whoever turned them in.
Post a Comment