[nfbmi-talk] jan 17 bsbp commission meeting

[Terry D. Eagle]

Mr. Rodgers statement about the Open Meetings Act and the Advisory
Commission, not only shows more ignorance of the law, his premise violates
P.A. 260 of 1978, requiring compliance with the OMA.  Does not P.A. 260 of
1978 still exist?

Also, Mr. Rodgers as you strive to fulfill the "spirit" of a law, how about
first fulfilling the "letter" of laws?  So, in the "spirit" of the FOIA, do
we the blind of Michigan a small free favor, and provide us with an
accessible  copy, without delay and charge, the Attorney General opinion, by
which you stand by your opinion statement.  And since it is an opinion about
a provision of law, it is NOT able to vbe kept secret and just your unworthy
word, as attorney-client confidential. Privilege.


-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of joe
harcz Comcast
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2013 2:29 PM
To: nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] jan 17 bsbp commission meeting

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."
_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
com