I got an email from the Alaska Redistricting Board (I subscribed to the email list long ago) announcing a zoom meeting Thursday to discuss potential settlements regarding attorney's fees and costs. From the Board:
"Date: Thursday June 22, 2023
Time: 12:30pm
Place: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82969365602?pwd=T2ozcno4dWFFQnc3eFN0WmlDYVFSZz09
Agenda
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Adoption of Agenda
Adoption of Minutes
Executive Session to meet with the Board’s counsel.
Pursuant to AS 44.62.310(1) and (4), the Board will discuss legal strategy and potential settlement regarding attorney’s fees and costs.
Adjournment"
I've emailed the following suggestions to the Board:
"A couple of suggestions, since there's no public testimony:
1. Before going into ES, please have the Board announce which plaintiffs still have outstanding legal fee requests, which ones will be discussed, and which have already been finalized or decided by the courts. Also clarify that there are claims for both the Superior Court and the Supreme Court.
2. Change adjournment to Item 6 and change item 5 to: "Return to Public Session: Vote on any decisions regarding issues discussed in ES." (My understanding is the Board has to do all the voting in public.)
"An executive session is not a stand-alone, or secret meeting; it is a part of a public meeting in which the public may be temporarily excluded for certain purposes. Actions are not taken during executive sessions. A decision by a governing body, such as a city council, to conduct any step in the deliberation process outside of the public forum must weigh the public interest in the right-to-know against any potential harm that could result from open deliberation. The governing body may, at its discretion, invite others into its executive session." https://www.commerce.alaska.gov/web/dcra/LocalGovernmentResourceDesk/LocalGovernmentElectedOfficials/MeetingsHeldinExecutiveSession.aspx
"Is secret ballot voting allowed under the act?
Almost always, no. In addition to requiring that deliberations of a governing body be open to the public, the act also requires that the vote shall be conducted in such a manner that the public may know the vote of each person entitled to vote, including meetings conducted by teleconference. The one exception is organizational meetings of a governing body to elect members to various offices, which are exempted from the requirement that the vote of each member be made public (AS 44.62. 310(a))."
https://dev.gov.alaska.gov/wp-content/uploads/Open-Meetings-Act.pdf
I understand they will be talking about settlements with at least Girdwood plaintiff attorneys. That implies they will potentially be discussing a range of dollar amounts the Board is willing pay in settlements. Revealing that range does somewhat compromise the Board attorney's ability to negotiate. But I have three thoughts:
- Plaintiffs who successfully argued before the Superior and Supreme Courts resulting in significant changes should be awarded attorney fees and costs because they've done a service to the Alaska. The Alaska constitution anticipates the public has such a role to play by giving any Alaskan the right to challenge a Redistrict Board's Proclamation Plan.
- Based on the Board's budget as of November 2022, the Board should have enough money left over.
- At the very least, in public session, the Board should announce the nature of their decision (ie Should the attorney negotiate with the plaintiffs be authorized to settle within the range the Board discussed in ES?) and then vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments will be reviewed, not for content (except ads), but for style. Comments with personal insults, rambling tirades, and significant repetition will be deleted. Ads disguised as comments, unless closely related to the post and of value to readers (my call) will be deleted. Click here to learn to put links in your comment.