[nfbmi-talk] jan 17 bsbp commission meeting
joe harcz Comcast
joeharcz at comcast.net
Wed Nov 13 19:29:07 UTC 2013
Seems Mr. Lawyer Rodgers doesn't know the PA 260 requirements for OMA on these meetings and the Rehabilitation Act requirements for same....I quote this legal beagle from the record here:
"
5 MR. RODGERS: Let me jump in for a second,
6 Mike. Twice now Mike has gotten the hair on the back of my
7 head to stand up by indicating that the Commission is bound by
8 the Open Meetings Act. It's my legal opinion, and I have an
9 informal opinion from the attorney generals office, that in
10 fact while we adhere to the spirit of the Open Meetings Act,
11 because this is an advisory Commission and does not have final
12 order, power to direct anything to happen, that based on those
13 rules which is different from the Commission for the Blind,
14 the Open Meetings Act per se does not apply.
15 And I mention that because one of the issues
16 that usually rises up at these type of meetings is that
17 individuals want to use a lot of time and public comment
18 beyond whatever perimeters that the Chair has set for public
19 comment, and she'll explain that when we get to that. And
20 that's to keep the meetings running in an orderly basis.
21 Unfortunately, some of our history was that commission
22 meetings ran on for a very long time with long dialogues
23 between commissioners and the public, which certainly dragged
24 the meetings out to a certain extent.
25 While we will adhere to the spirit of the Open
1 Meetings Act, we are not legally per se bound by it. But I do
2 encourage you to look at it. Because it clearly gives us some
3 guide posts on the things we ought to be doing such as giving
4 people notice of the hearings, allowing the people to
5 participate in the hearings through public comment, et cetera.
6 Thank you.
7 MR. PEMBLE: Thank you for clarification."
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list