What is not covered in the Open Meeting Act of Nebraska

Someone is complaining that the message Dave Wiederspon gave at Council Meeting on Tuesday on the process for discussion of the City Manager/Economic Development coordinator position outside of council would be a violation of state law governing open meetings. I did some digging into what constitutes a meeting in the state of Nebraska and here is what I have found thus far.


Under the law, specifically section ' 84-1409(2), "meetings, for purposes of the open meetings statutes, are defined as "all regular, special, or called meetings, formal or informal, of any public body for the purposes of briefing, discussion of public business, formation of tentative policy, or the taking of any action of the public body."

Exceptions are provided for in Section 84-1410(5) providing , "... that the open meetings statutes shall not apply to "chance meetings or to attendance at or travel to conventions or workshops of members of a public body at which there is no meeting of the body then intentionally convened, if there is no vote or other action taken regarding any matter over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction, or advisory power."

The other component for a requirement to hold and open meeting is to have a quorum of the members present for such discussions to fall under the governance of the statute. The Nebraska Court of appeals found in Johnson v. Nebraska Environmental Control Council, 2 Neb. App. 263, 509 N.W.2d 21 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993), indicated that "private quorum conferences" are an evasion of the law. The Nebraska Supreme Court also indicated that subgroups of the Omaha City Council constituting less than a quorum of that body were not public bodies on that ground. City of Elkhorn v. City of Omaha, 272 Neb. 867, 725 N.W.2d 792 (2007).

For those who don't know, a quorum is the number of people in a public body equal to one half the  total membership plus one, rounded to the next higher whole person. The discussion of an idea between two council members or a council member and the City Manager does not constitute a public meeting under the laws of Nebraska as found by the Supreme Court of the State of Nebraska.
Certainly cases have been brought forward where the rules have been circumvented where two people talk and one of them then talks to another and so on so the ideas are passed around and debated to a conclusion behind the scenes. If there is evidence that this is occurring in Sidney, then a formal complaint should be lodged and those engaging in such conduct should be publicly admonished.

According to Nebraska law, what the Mayor said was not a threat of violation of the open meetings laws and I am sure that if it were, either Gary Person or Jordan Ball would have made mention of it and clarifying statements would be made to correct any such misstatement. If the Mayor and the City Manager discuss ideas, costs and benefits in private, and the results of those discussions generate a policy or policies to be considered, that is not a public meeting, because no quorum of the City Council was ever present to act on public business. If there is no quorum, there can be no meeting by the very definitions contained in the state statute.

Also, the good doctor was wrong on Tuesday night when he said that person who made a motion could remove a second. Robert's Rules of Order clearly states that the person who second's a motion may remove it only if the original motion is revised. The Mayor would not have been allowed to rescind Councilman Filsinger's second. He was correct, however in that the second, once given could not be rescinded at all, given the events that evening. Parliamentary errors occur in all levels of government and the good doctor should be commended for bringing up the error.

Your comments are welcome.

Michael Rowland