Sally McDonald, associate counsel for the BCWA from Cameron & Mittleman, said she spoke to Michael Fields, the authority in the Attorney General’s Office on the state Open Meetings Law. She said the law regarding interviews “is unclear.”
But erring on the side of caution, she said, the board should probably conduct the interviews again.
As usual the legal eagle team the BCWA used cannot read a simple open meeting law any better than the BCWA can.
The great thing abot the law is that it is not full of so called legal mombo jumbo. It is sinple and easy for the average person to understand.
Lets look at what is unclear about interviews and voting at the meeting on them shall we.
Page 12 Open Meetings Law
A violation of the OMA was upheld in Tanner v. Town Council of the Town of East Greenwich, 880 A.2d 784 (R.I. Supreme Court, 2005), based on the totality of the circumstances, when notice for a town council meeting misled the public by advertising that only interviews would be conducted, however, votes were subsequently taken on the interviewed candidates at the meeting.
Does anyone see something unclear in that!!!!!!
Heck no; it is straight forwar and took 38 seconds to find reading from page 1 of the law down to page 12 where this is. So this associate that would b handling the MA problem of Anawan since Mack cannot practice in MA according to the board, is confused on page 12 of this simple law?
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
