OML Primer | Open Meeting Law Complaint - Maricopa Board of Supervisors + Maricopa Public Health
Using public records requests to create inference of violation
This is a re-print of a long-thread Twitter post from earlier today, available here:
In this post:
How to demonstrate a violation when public bodies and their agencies use closed-door exceptions?
Using public records requests to create inference of violation
If a gov't agency is taking action you know requires formal approval by a public body subject to the OML - but no publicly posted meetings show that approval is given - and yet you notice a number of executive sessions held with that agency around the same time?
Start fishing!
This is when public records requests can potentially produce leads - but takes time and effort. Broad net cast first - which was denied in full bc "we are too busy and there's too many responsive documents".
Fine. So I narrow the scope and negotiate a smaller production:
25,000 potential records reduced to 130+, which I port into numbered Excel entries with descriptions, notes and comments. This is the time-consuming part of sleuthing. But over time, a pattern emerges. Little bits of info, pieced together. Clues. New leads. More questions. Fun!
A pattern emerges - I see AZDHS is NOT dictating MCDPH to implement mandatory quarantine policies. Just the opposite. I see MCDPH sending DIFFERENT PPT to the BOS for executive session vs public sessions. I see actions by MCDPH after these mtgs suggesting they got BOS approval.
From 25,000 to 130 to 16 seriously "smoking gun" public records that support a reasonable inference that MCDPH was getting approval in closed-door executive session at BOS.
All I needed was a "reasonable inference" to get through the "legal advice" exception to the OML.
I found 3 closed-door executive sessions the BOS claimed were for "legal advice" that were actually used to meet MCDPH to discuss and approve quarantine policy.
They didn't want you to hear what they discussing, so they invited lawyers to attend and claimed the exception.
You can't do that. At some point in time, the "legal advice" ended and the BOS was discussing what to DO about the advice. And that's where the OML exception ends, and a public meeting should begin.
Once you make the "reasonable inference" that violation of the OML occurred in executive session, the burden of proof shifts to the public body to prove they acted properly.
And the AG can inspect the records of those executive sessions to see if they are telling the truth.
I have the receipts - MCDPH was going to these closed-door meetings seeking approval to change policies, to MANDATE quarantines, even though the state wasn't requiring it.
Because too many districts refused to accept MCDPH authority - and they didn't like that
Once you show the BOS was approving policy changes behind closed doors - not just getting legal advice, the rest is easy.
The fact that ADHS wasn't mandating quarantine policies means MCDPH was on their own - these closed-door sessions were not to INFORM the BOS of policies coming from the state, but instead - to FORM policy for Maricopa county.
That's an abuse of the OML legal advice exception.
Money quote from ADHS:
"Schools not wanting to quarantine or isolate can only be informed of recommendation"
While in open session, MCDPH gave BOS data on C19 case count, other general info. But in executive session, they discussed school data.
Why the secrecy? Because they didn't want parents to watch over their shoulder. They didn't want parents to know how policy was made.
You cannot look at these slides and deny that BOS was making policy behind closed doors.
You can't hide behind lawyers being present to put the entirety of the meeting out of public view.
This is an obvious violation.
By the third closed meeting, you see MCDPH "updating" BOS on work taken pursuant to BOS approvals given at PRIOR closed meetings - no reasonable person can assert legal privilege here.
"Policy Recommendations" from MCDPH are not confidential legal advice
"corrective action"
"and if they don't comply, we will exercise our authority"
Beyond parody - these public health officials were drunk with power, and wanted more
And this is why the county attorneys election is so important - all throughout this charade of OML violations, county attorneys were present at the meetings that KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN they were being used to hide these actions from the public.
Chose wisely.
End.
Create your profile
Only paid subscribers can comment on this post
Check your email
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.