AWC Legislative Bulletin - Volume 30, No. 6
November 16, 2007 (Plain Text Version)

Return to Graphical Version | Search back issues

In this issue:
From the Director: Initiative 747 Declared Unconstitutional
SAVE THE DATE!
2008 AWC City Legislative Action Conference (CLAC):
January 30-31
Legislative Committee Meetings
Energy & Telecommunications
Environment & Water
General Local Government
Infrastructure, Transportation & Economic Development
Land Use & Housing
Law & Justice
Municipal Finance
Personnel & Labor Relations

General Local Government

Taping of Executive Sessions

The state Attorney General’s office has released a draft bill that would require all local governing bodies to record in entirety all executive sessions and retain the recordings for two years. The bill states that recordings of executive sessions will be considered public records not subject to public inspection or copying under the public records law except by court order and only under judicial review. The burden of proof is on the governing body to establish that refusal to permit public inspection and copying is in accordance with the limited purpose of executive sessions.

The AWC Legislative Subcommittee on General Local Government is recommending to the AWC Legislative Committee that cities strongly defend against this proposal in the coming legislative session. Cities have traditionally not supported a requirement to tape executive sessions because the creation of a tape creates a new record for legal conflict.

In addition, this proposal would, in effect, increase cities’ legal obligations by placing the burden on cities to prove executive sessions were held in accordance with state law. Last month, cities and several other local government representatives visited with the Attorney General’s staff to relay concerns about this proposal. For further information, contact Victoria Lincoln at victorial@awcnet.org or 1-800-562-8981.

Special Meeting Notification

The Attorney General has a second bill draft for the 2008 legislative session that would clarify the noticing procedures for "special meetings" held by local government elected bodies.

The bill would:

Increase the amount of notification required to hold a special meeting by requiring posting on the agency website and posting in a public area at city hall; and
Clarify the notification to newspapers and radio stations.

City clerks and other local government groups are reviewing the draft language. For a copy, contact Victoria Lincoln at victorial@awcnet.org or 1-800-562-8981.

Public Records Exemptions Committee (SB 5435)

This committee reviewed their first four exemptions (as reported in the September Bulletin) and took public testimony on each at two recent meetings. Cities were particularly concerned about potential changes to public employment applications and volunteer applications.

At the November meeting, the committee failed to find common ground on this issue and therefore is not making a recommendation to the Legislature to bring this issue forward in the 2008 session. For that matter, not one of the four exemptions was forwarded to the Legislature with recommendations for changes. Instead, the committee has committed to meeting monthly in 2008 and attempt to provide guidance on a plethora of exemptions for the 2009 legislative session.

To review documents such as meeting agendas or to get a listing of committee members, go to www.sunshinecommittee.com.

Elimination of Election Dates

The County Auditor’s Association is planning to advance a bill to eliminate two election dates per year. This is similar to the proposal advanced last session where two spring dates would be eliminated and all special elections would be compressed into the remaining two dates. The Auditors are proposing that March and May elections be eliminated and February and April election dates remain.

Cities expressed concern last year that with the elimination of two election dates local government ballot measures, including school levies and bond issues, fire district matters, city, county and all other measures would be competing for ballot space and voter attention. The Auditors are concerned that, with overlapping elections during a four-month period, they cannot keep up with changes to voter rolls and other administrative duties required to conduct efficient and accurate elections.