Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Is/has YOUR legislator been involved in secret meetings regarding anti-gun discussion

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    Is/has YOUR legislator been involved in secret meetings regarding anti-gun discussion

    Mine has .... I found out ...

    Legislators cannot meet behind closed doors to discuss possible gun laws ~ that's against the law in every state (and US Congress) that I know of ..

    In my state, I found the highest ranking democrat being involved in numerous secret meetings ....

    Do a records/FOI request and seek out records of any meeting from your legislators ...

    Find out ... make it known to the public ... not only does it hurt them, it hurts the anti-gun legislation that they support

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Suffolk Virginia
    Posts
    699

    Re: Is/

    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Mine has .... I found out ...

    Legislators cannot meet behind closed doors to discuss possible gun laws ~ that's against the law in every state (and US Congress) that I know of ..

    In my state, I found the highest ranking democrat being involved in numerous secret meetings ....

    Do a records/FOI request and seek out records of any meeting from your legislators ...

    Find out ... make it known to the public ... not only does it hurt them, it hurts the anti-gun legislation that they support
    So what do you do to report it?

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by mpguy View Post
    So what do you do to report it?

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Check your state laws in respect to open meetings ...

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Check your state laws in respect to open meetings ...
    So, David, did you report the violation of the open meeting laws?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Just to yank the OP's chain -

    How would we know, if it was a secret meeting?

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Just to yank the OP's chain -

    How would we know, if it was a secret meeting?

    stay safe.
    If was not noticed AT ALL as required by state law, then its a secret meeting.

    Its called WORK ... get off your butt or quit whining about your gun rights being taken away.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-18-2013 at 08:44 PM.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    So, David, did you report the violation of the open meeting laws?

    stay safe.
    Yes I did .... I have 5 counts in 2 separate cases pending before my state's reviewing body. One does not "report"; one files a complaint ... in my state.

    And no, I am not looking up other state law ...

    Some states have a no-cost, pro-se friendly way of filing such complaints....


    You can always report it to your local media and see if they pick up on it ... but provide them some level of proof ...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 03-18-2013 at 08:45 PM.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Another? Another????


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Mine has .... I found out ...

    Legislators cannot meet behind closed doors to discuss possible gun laws ~ that's against the law in every state (and US Congress) that I know of ..

    SNIP
    Ok. At least provide a cite for this claim.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by georg jetson View Post
    Ok. At least provide a cite for this claim.
    In the case Ansonia Library Bd. of Dirs. v. FOIC, 42 Conn. Supp. 84 (1991) the court found that a meeting between even 2 members of a large member committee is considered a meeting which would trigger the Freedom of Information Act’s open meeting provisions.

    This is for my state ...

  11. #11
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    I don't know where the OP is located, but in Ohio:

    Referred to collectively as Ohio Sunshine Law
    Ohio's Public Meetings Law: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/121.22
    Ohio's Public Records Law: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/149.43
    ------------------------------------------------------------
    What does a caring, sensitive person feel when they are forced to use a handgun to stop a threat?

    Recoil.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    MWSY, those laws you cite refer to official actions. These guys can still meet over a drink or have dinner or ride in an elevator and discuss their opinions on anything. If it is an official deliberation or an official vote or other official business, then it must be done in the open. I don't know what the specifics of the OP's gripe is (nor do I care). I am just pointing out that things are not as black-and-white as some would have us believe.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158

    The Showers Test from 135 Wis.2d 77 (1987) 398 N.W.2d 154. Interpreted by Wisc. DoJ

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=4,50

    The Showers test.
    The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the above statutory definition of a “meeting” applies
    whenever a convening of members of a governmental body satisfies two requirements: (1) there is a purpose to engage in governmental business and (2) the number of members present is sufficient to determine the governmental body’s course of action. Showers, 135 Wis. 2d at 102.

    a. The purpose requirement.
    The first part of the Showers test focuses on the purpose for which the members of the governmental body
    are gathered. They must be gathered to conduct governmental business. Showers stressed that “governmental
    business” refers to any formal or informal action, including discussion, decision or information gathering, on
    matters within the governmental body’s realm of authority. Showers, 135 Wis. 2d at 102-03.

    Thus, in Badke, 173 Wis. 2d at 572-74, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the village board conducted a “meeting,” as defined in the open meetings law, when a quorum of the board regularly attended each plan commission
    meeting to observe the commission’s proceedings on a development plan that was subject to the board’s approval.
    The Court stressed that a governmental body is engaged in governmental business when its members gather to
    simply hear information on a matter within the body’s realm of authority. Id. at 573-74.

    The members need not actually discuss the matter or otherwise interact with one another to be engaged in governmental business. Id.at 574-76. The Court also held that the gathering of town board members was not chance or social because a majority of town board members attended plan commission meetings with regularity. Id. at 576.

    In contrast, the Court of Appeals concluded in Paulton v. Volkmann, 141 Wis. 2d 370, 375-77, 415 N.W.2d 528 (Ct. App. 1987), that no meeting occurred where a quorum of school board members attended a gathering of town residents, but
    did not collect information on a subject the school board had the potential to decide.

    b. The numbers requirement.
    The second part of the Showers test requires that the number of members present be sufficient to
    determine the governmental body’s course of action on the business under consideration. People often assume
    that this means that the open meetings law applies only to gatherings of a majority of the members of a
    governmental body. That is not the case because the power to control a body’s course of action can refer either to
    the affirmative power to pass a proposal or the negative power to defeat a proposal. Therefore, a gathering of
    one-half of the members of a body, or even fewer, may be enough to control a course of action if it is enough to
    block a proposal. This is called a “negative quorum.”

    Typically, governmental bodies operate under a simple majority rule in which a margin of one vote is
    necessary for the body to pass a proposal. Under that approach, exactly one-half of the members of the body
    constitutes a “negative quorum” because that number against a proposal is enough to prevent the formation of a
    majority in its favor. Under simple majority rule, therefore, the open meetings law applies whenever one-half or
    more of the members of the governmental body gather to discuss or act on matters within the body’s realm of
    authority.

    The size of a “negative quorum” may be smaller, however, when a governmental body operates under a
    super majority rule. For example, if a two-thirds majority is required for a body to pass a measure, then any
    gathering of more than one-third of the body’s members would be enough to control the body’s course of action
    by blocking the formation of a two-thirds majority. Showers made it clear that the open meetings law applies to
    such gatherings, as long as the purpose requirement is also satisfied (i.e., the gathering is for the purpose of
    conducting governmental business). Showers, 135 Wis. 2d at 101-02. If a three-fourths majority is required to
    pass a measure, then more than one-fourth of the members would constitute a “negative quorum,” etc.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-19-2013 at 08:06 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158

    WI law is easy! VERIFIED OPEN MEETINGS LAW COMPLAINT, from compliance guide.

    SAMPLE OPEN MEETINGS LAW COMPLAINT FORM
    VERIFIED OPEN MEETINGS LAW COMPLAINT
    Now comes the complainant
    and as and for a verified complaint pursuant to Wis. Stat.
    §§ 19.96 and 19.97, alleges and complains as follows:
    1.
    That he is a resident of the
    [town, village, city] of
    [street, avenue, etc.]
    that his or her Post Office Address is
    2.
    , Wisconsin, and
    , Wisconsin
    [name of member or chief presiding officer] whose Post Office Address is
    That
    [city], Wisconsin, was
    ___________________________ [street, avenue, etc.],
    on the
    [zip].
    day of
    200_, a
    [member or chief presiding officer] of
    ________________________________ designate official title of governmental body] and that such
    ____________________ [board, council, commission or committee] is a governmental body within the meaning
    of Wis. Stat. § 19.82(1).
    3.
    That
    [name of member or chief presiding officer] on the
    ___________________________, 200 , at
    day of
    County of
    , Wisconsin,
    knowingly attended a meeting of said governmental body held in violation of Wis. Stat. § 19.96 and
    _________________________________________ [cite other applicable section(s)], or otherwise violated those
    sections in that [set out every act or omission constituting the offense charged]:
    4.
    That
    [name of member or chief presiding officer] is thereby subject to the
    penalties prescribed in Wis. Stat. § 19.96.
    5.
    That the following witnesses can testify to said acts or omissions:
    Name
    Address
    Telephone
    _____________________________ __________________________________________ _____________
    _____________________________ __________________________________________ _____________
    _____________________________ __________________________________________ _____________
    _____________________________ __________________________________________ _____________
    _____________________________ __________________________________________ _____________
    6. That the following documentary evidence of said acts or omissions is available:
    7. That this complaint is made to the District Attorney for
    County under the provisions of
    Wis. Stat. § 19.97, and that the district attorney may bring an action to recover the forfeiture provided in Wis.
    Stat. § 19.96.
    WHEREFORE, complainant prays that the District Attorney for
    institute an action against
    County, Wisconsin, timely
    [name of member or chief presiding officer] to recover the forfeiture
    provided in Wis. Stat. § 19.96, together with reasonable costs and disbursements as provided by law.
    STATE OF WISCONSIN
    COUNTY OF
    )
    ) ss.
    )
    being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that
    he is the above-named
    complainant, that he has read the foregoing complaint and that, based on his or her knowledge, the contents of
    the complaint are true.
    ___________________________________________
    COMPLAINANT
    Subscribed and sworn to before me
    this ____ day of _________, 200_.
    _____________________________
    Notary Public, State of Wisconsin
    My Commission: ______________

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    MWSY, those laws you cite refer to official actions. These guys can still meet over a drink or have dinner or ride in an elevator and discuss their opinions on anything. If it is an official deliberation or an official vote or other official business, then it must be done in the open. I don't know what the specifics of the OP's gripe is (nor do I care). I am just pointing out that things are not as black-and-white as some would have us believe.
    Most states have even lunch or drinks together is no allowed....eye does not cite any case law .. soooo I recommend one examining this state law do so.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    In the case Ansonia Library Bd. of Dirs. v. FOIC, 42 Conn. Supp. 84 (1991) the court found that a meeting between even 2 members of a large member committee is considered a meeting which would trigger the Freedom of Information Act’s open meeting provisions.

    This is for my state ...
    Please provide a link for that case. In the form you have cited the title, it is nearly impossible to find any information on it, and the information available seems to indicated that the primary thrust of the ruling is not as presented.

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    Most states have even lunch or drinks together is no allowed....eye does not cite any case law .. soooo I recommend one examining this state law do so.
    The law to which I am referring is the law that MWSY cited. It specifically uses the word "official" to refer to the business and the meetings subject to sunshine. I suggest that you also look at the definition of "meeting" in that law. If you insist, I can repost the links.

    I would note the MWSY posted links to the law he is citing and that a certain other poster posted an impossible to find case reference without a link.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,158
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    In the case Ansonia Library Bd. of Dirs. v. FOIC, 42 Conn. Supp. 84 (1991) the court found that a meeting between even 2 members of a large member committee is considered a meeting which would trigger the Freedom of Information Act’s open meeting provisions. This is for my state ...
    The complete caption is
    Ansonia Library Bd. of Dirs. v. FOIC, 42 Conn. Sup. 84, 600 A.2d 1058 (1991) It is likely that Connecticut Supplement is copyright closely held.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The complete caption is
    Ansonia Library Bd. of Dirs. v. FOIC, 42 Conn. Sup. 84, 600 A.2d 1058 (1991) It is likely that Connecticut Supplement is copyright closely held.
    If he is truly personally familiar with the case and is not just blindly passing it along, he can link us to the text.

    Not hopeful.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •