Maricopa County supervisors laugh at Open Meeting Law

Government transparency is apparently a laughing matter after all.

On Wednesday morning, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors held an executive session to determine what action the county would take regarding recent developments in the federal court's contempt-of-court hearings against Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

In court last week, an attorney for the county said he would consult with the board as to whether the board would join in the sheriff's motion to recuse U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow because of questions he asked regarding investigations of Snow and Snow's wife by the Sheriff's Office.

Snow presided over the trial in which Arpaio and his office were found to have practiced racial profiling, and Arpaio and his top deputies have admitted they were in civil contempt of the judge's orders.

That was ostensibly what was discussed in executive session Wednesday morning. The agenda for the meeting said it pertained to "possible action regarding Melendres v. Arpaio, et al," the racial-profiling case. It was supposed to "take action consistent with the direction given in Executive Session," according to the agenda.

Executive sessions are conducted away from the press and the public because they pertain to legal discussion and attorney-client privilege. But when the board votes on the action to be taken, under state law it must be done in public.

An attorney from the County Attorney's Office was present, as well as the attorney representing the county in the federal lawsuit. After they left the conference room, two media reporters were allowed in for the open vote.

Supervisor Clint Hickman then moved to file a court motion "consistent with what was discussed in e-session." It was quickly seconded and passed unanimously, and when the reporters looked up quizzically, the supervisors, to a man, laughed long and hard. One quipped, "You have enough for a story?" Then they laughed again.

Supervisor Steve Gallardo said, "You can pretty much read between the lines."

There was no explanation of what was voted on.

The reporters were dismissed, and the board went back into executive session.

Page Gonzales, chief of staff for board chairman Steve Chucri, later explained, "Whatever they file (in the court), they have to do it, and the judge has to know about it before it shows up in a blog."

Later in the day, the supervisors filed a notice with Snow's court saying they were not going to take a position on Arpaio's motion for Snow's recusal. In essence, they were not supporting the sheriff's argument.

But First Amendment attorney Dan Barr said the board should have made explicitly clear what the issue was.

"If you are voting on something, you have to say what you're voting on," Barr said.

The state's Open Meeting Law says meetings not only have to be conducted in public but "notices and agendas be provided which contain such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters to be discussed or decided."

Barr said that the executive session was indeed protected by law and the discussion could remain confidential.