Possible lawsuit against city regarding alleged open meetings violations

[Midtowner]

I may have you confused with someone else I've met from this board.

At any rate, yes, back in the early 1980s and late 1970s, the case I cited was just part of the prosecution of the Oklahoma Industry Authority, a creature of statute, which was created for the same purpose as Alliance--as an entity to incentivize the expansion of industry within the State of Oklahoma. The Authority was comprised of the state/city fathers at the time, the Gaylords, the Kerrs and McGees--the ruling class at the time. The case I cited was basically the tip of the iceberg. To cover up their activities, this group kept records in different locations all over the place. None of those places kept regular hours. This was done for the express purpose of making it damn near impossible for anyone to find out what was going on. Alliance is much more effective in this regard.

The Oklahoma Industry Authority was responsible for the construction and subsequent sale of the Deaconess tower for pennies on the dollar to members of the Authority. They maintained a flurry of public trusts designed to keep the public in the dark. When the Underground was built downtown, coincidentally, all of the buildings owned by members of the Authority got connections to the underground, etc. The only thing they did which I can recall which actually expanded industry in Oklahoma was incentivizing the GM plant in MWC with the promise of the land being tax exempt.

The Attorney General at the time, Jan Eric Cartwright, knew the scheme was illegal and his first term was spent unwinding many of the Authority's deals. Yes, the County Commissioner scandal was going on at the same time, but that was an entirely different ballgame. Cartwright's second term was going to be spent criminally prosecuting all of these city fathers. Needless to say, the editorial board of the Oklahoman wasn't about to stand for E.K. Gaylord going to the pokey, so they ran about the most extreme campaign against Cartwright and in favor of Mike Turpen, with nearly daily front page editorials until the anti-business Cartwright was defeated in the primary. Not surprisingly, all of the business surrounding the OIA just went away.

I didn't have a ton of time to muck around in the Oklahoman archives this morning, and I'm sure you can appreciate the historical record of this is a bit colored since the AG was going after the owner of the paper of record, but here's a story re Cartwright's ill-fated 1982 campaign:

NORMAN — Attorney General Jan Eric Cartwright, in an _infrequent political speech Wednesday night, attacked Edward _L_. Gaylord, editor and publisher of The _Oklahoman and Times, during a rally of 150 _supporters.
_Cartwrrght talked less than _two-minutes during the _watermelon and soft drink _fund-raiser_, but spent that time comparing _himself and Gaylord.
One thing about _Eddie Gaylord and I—he and I are a lot alike," _Cartwright said.
"I'm an elected official who works for the people, and he is a trust official who works for himself."
Cartwright added that while _he, as a state _official, follows Oklahoma's Constitution, Gaylord "writes his own constitution and keeps it a secret."
With that, Cartwright ended his speech saying, "Thank you very much."
_.The _fund-raiser at Norman's Andrews Park was staged by a group of Norman supporters that charged $1 for a slice of watermelon and 50 cents for soft drinks to raise money for the Cartwright campaign. - _. Gene _Tyner_, a representative of the Sierra Club who was master of ceremonies, said he could not say how much money was raised for the candidate, but in assessing _. _Cartwright_'_s chances in Cleveland County said, "I think _^_he will do well. It's a pretty well-informed electorate."
After the speech, Cartwright was asked why he did not talk more about his campaign for _re-election and his battle with Mike _Turpen of _Muskogee for the Democratic nomination.
He responded, "I learn more by visiting with the people and hearing of- their concerns over taxes and concerns for equal treatment by the government."
Cartwright, who mounts a very modest campaign each election, said he feels good about his contest _. with _Jurpen_, but that. "I always keep looking_, over _;my shoulder."
_Mike Williams, _.who _.is handling _Cartwrights_? campaign advertising, said a $28,000 _television series of ads began running Wednesday, and Cartwright is now trying to raise money for newspaper and radio appeals.

My whole point here is that there is a reason we study history--it has a tendency to repeat itself. In Oklahoma, we set up procedural safeguards to protect us from repeating our mistakes. Now this crop of city fathers might be noble and have motives as pure as can be, but a student of history would at least be skeptical of that.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^^
I don’t really disagree with what you are saying for the most part (people seem to be misinterpreting my posts as blanket endorsement of keeping the public in the dark and/or non-transparent government). Government MUST be accountable to the people.

What I AM saying is this :

• There are very defensible reasons why public trusts exist, and time and again their existence has been upheld by courts and the IRS, among other entities
• Public trusts have different requirements and different missions than do elected bodies
• There are defensible reasons for economic incentives to exist, not the least of which they have been approved by votes of the people or by petitions and agreements between affected agencies
• There are legitimate (and legally-upheld) reasons for instruments such as executive session and confidential discussions related to personnel issues, real estate appraisals, financial negotiations and the like
• There are legitimate reasons for some negotiations to be done in confidence, including PROTECTION of the public's interests and also competitive advantage (which again is in the public interest)
• Confidential negotiations occur in all departments of City government, and on a daily basis. Most obviously require review of some body (usually City Council) before being formalized
• Current City practices comply with the Oklahoma Open Meetings Act according to any sources I can find online and according to any law or ruling which has been linked by others in this forum
• This compliance has been confirmed on multiple occasions by the (very conservative) Municipal Counselor and in independent opinions given to third parties who have previously objected
• There are more restrictive open meetings laws in a few other states and if someone really wanted to make a difference here they should try to change things at the state level
• Having been a part of getting multiple items on agendas of bodies such as City Council plus various design and planning boards I can assure you that last-minute publication is nearly always caused by a mad scramble to get items in before the deadline rather than attempts to deceive or obfuscate
• The idea that City Council members should not be briefed by staff regarding items to appear on their agendas - especially big-ticket or possibly controversial items - but instead should learn everything and debate every nuance around the horshoe is pure insanity, completely impractical, dangerous in and of itself, and would require Council meet daily just to get the City's business done
• You can just as easily characterize "small meetings" - those in which there is not a quorum reached - as an effort to COMPLY with open meetings requirements as opposed to skirting them
• There has not been (to my knowledge) a significant case or even allegation of impropriety or illegal behavior in the handling of public monies under the current council and mayor, the past five or more mayors, the past four or more City Managers, and for something approaching 40 years (at least)
• The City has a bunch of incredibly competent and passionate people who are dedicated to making OKC a better, more competitive place, and i know this because I’ve worked alongside many of them and know MANY others like me - who have done so far more than I have - who feel the same way
• Most of the people I’ve worked with could probably make significantly more money in the private sector OR (in the case of trustees, board members and volunteers) are DONATING their valuable time to serve our city and I think this deserves a certain measure of respect, period
• Jumping straight from "I don't like a loophole in state meetings laws and feel like it is being exploited" to "these people are crooks" - despite zero evidence or legitimate allegation - is disingenous, paranoid, and slanderous.

[jerrywall]

Jumping straight from "I don't like a loophole in state meetings laws and feel like it is being exploited" to "these people are crooks" - despite zero evidence or legitimate allegation - is disingenous, paranoid, and slanderous.

THIS so much. There's gonna be a day where some people are going to be surprised when their chickens come home to roost for their comments on boards and social media. Having a hidden screen name doesn't make you immune from consequences, and it may not be immediate, but as James Gunn learned this weekend, there are consequences for you online behavior.

[Midtowner]

I never made that jump. I'm just stating that there's tremendous historical precedent to suggest that left to their own devices, people can be crooks and I'd rather not leave them to their own devices. The current leadership may be perfectly trustworthy. That doesn't mean the leadership will always be trustworthy. We need checks and balances to protect the public from bad leadership. It's hard to see a need for that when you are experiencing good leadership.

[Urban Pioneer]

This attack on Urbanized is almost comical. He isn't part of some sort a cabal simply because he has a positive spirit about what is happening downtown. His is hard earned. He has been part of this city's transformation now for several decades. If you want a glimpse of what people vital to our city's downtown operation are like, look to Urbanized.

Sometimes the boosterism makes me want to gag, but ten years on the streetcar project has made me a bit cynical. The critique regarding the culture of how things are often done with city management decisions is accurate. I'm glad that his experiences haven't given way to cynicism. It brings balance and perspective to the forum. Thanks for being here. Just because someone is positive doesn't mean their part of some hidden conspiracy even if their world-view doesn't match yours.

[Urbanized]

I never made that jump. I'm just stating that there's tremendous historical precedent to suggest that left to their own devices, people can be crooks and I'd rather not leave them to their own devices. The current leadership may be perfectly trustworthy. That doesn't mean the leadership will always be trustworthy. We need checks and balances to protect the public from bad leadership. It's hard to see a need for that when you are experiencing good leadership.

Also, I don't necessarily disagree with anything you are saying here; especially the last three sentences. Nor did I say that you personally had made the jump. But obviously a number of people here HAVE done this; those responses are potentially damaging to our community, and I don't believe they should remain unchallenged and left to fester. It's also telling that in some instances the method of defending such positions is not by citing sources but instead via ad hominem "kill the messenger" type attacks, which are the calling card of a losing argument.

This attack on Urbanized is almost comical. He isn't part of some sort a cabal simply because he has a positive spirit about what is happening downtown. His is hard earned. He has been part of this city's transformation now for several decades. If you want a glimpse of what people vital to our city's downtown operation are like, look to Urbanized.

Sometimes the boosterism makes me want to gag, but ten years on the streetcar project has made me a bit cynical. The critique regarding the culture of how things are often done with city management decisions is accurate. I'm glad that his experiences haven't given way to cynicism. It brings balance and perspective to the forum. Thanks for being here. Just because someone is positive doesn't mean their part of some hidden conspiracy even if their world-view doesn't match yours.

Thanks for the kind words, Jeff. I know you have yourself put in tremendous effort for our city and also have had to hack your way through a fair share of bureaucracy, red tape, turf battles, silo effects and other frustrations that occur when dealing with government. I myself have been a part of many instances which have frustrated me, left a bad taste in my mouth, made me question priorities and the like. I laugh and roll my eyes when people believe I'm some sort of blind booster; just as I know some people in leadership probably roll THEIR eyes when they see me walk into a meeting or get an e-mail from me. Governing is not easy; it's a messy business. By design, in fact.

I just know that in years of fighting these various battles I personally have rarely been exposed to individuals who I believed were working for their own interests (other than their own political interests/ambitions) or against something they believed in their heart - no matter how misguided - to be the best interests of the City. I am far more concerned with individuals in government who might be apathetic, just going through the motions, or who stubbornly rely on old mindsets and practices when making decisions.

[Pete]

https://freepressokc.com/council-mem...nst-okla-city/

[Pete]

[gopokes88]

Oh look it's Ed Shadid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxRZXd6r9E

[jerrywall]

I'll be interested in seeing how this goes. I was on the board for a non-profit, where a group of people that called themselves the 4 horsemen would regularly meet in private. They didn't represent a quorum, but they would plan how they'd push or vote on issues, and it wasn't hard in the open meetings for them to get an additional vote or 3 and get a majority. Technically, this was still within the rules though. They were just "socializing" or "having dinner". This seems to mirror what Shadid is accusing of happening here. I'm not a big fan of his, and I'm not sure of how this will go, but it will be interesting to watch.

[Midtowner]

So some problematic Attorney General opinions exist for the city here. Many are distinguishable, but they don't tend to favor some of the practices of the city.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...2+851+686+685+

Therefore, it is the official opinion of the Attorney General that the Open Meeting Act applies to meetings of the board of directors of a nonprofit corporation, where such corporation has contracted with a city and a public trust for the operation, maintenance and improvement of public property, and where the city makes annual appropriations to the public trust to pay to the corporation as an operating fee, where such meetings are held for the purpose of discussing business concerning such matters.

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...9+718+559+558+

¶20 It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. Absent a contractual provision to the contrary, private organizations (either for-profit or non-profit) which contract to provide goods or services to the public on behalf of a governmental agency and receive payment from public funds merely as reimbursement for goods provided or services rendered, are not "supported" by public funds and therefore are not subject to the requirements of the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 2001, §§ 301 - 314.
2. Private organizations (either for-profit or non-profit) are subject to the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 2001, §§ 301 - 314, if:
A. they do not submit itemized invoices or claims for goods provided or services rendered to receive public funds, but instead receive a direct allocation of public funds from tax or other revenues; and
B. there is no quid pro quo or direct relationship to the amount of goods provided or services performed by the private organizations and the funds they are allocated; i.e., the organizations receive funds regardless of whether they provide goods or perform services. Indianapolis Convention & Visitors Ass'n v. Indianapolis Newspapers, Inc., 577 N.E.2d 208, 210 n.2, 213-14 (Ind. 1991).
3. Whether any particular private organization is "supported in whole or in part by public funds or entrusted with the expending of public funds, or administering public property," (25 O.S. 2001, § 304(1)), making it a public body under the Act, is a question of fact which cannot be answered in an Attorney General Opinion. 74 O.S. 2001, § 18b(A)(5).
4. Attorney General Opinion 80-215 is hereby modified to the extent it applied the "decision-making authority" test to private organizations which were not "subordinate entities" as defined in Sanders v. Benton, 579 P.2d 815 (Okla. 1978).

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...3+60+59+20+19+

¶11 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that:

1. The Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 301 (1977) et seq., applies to meetings of the officers of a nonprofit corporation operating public property under contract with a municipality, where matters to be discussed or taken up concern the administration of the contract or the operation, improvement or maintenance of such public property;
2. A municipality may not lawfully delegate to a nonprofit corporation its power to make improvements to or contract for improvements to public property, unless a charter provision expressly permits such delegation;
3. In the event a municipal charter provision permits a municipality to delegate to a nonprofit corporation its power to contract for improvements to public property, the provisions of the Public Competitive Bidding Act of 1974, 61 O.S. 101 (1974) et seq., must be followed by the nonprofit corporation in contracting for such improvements, provided the municipality has no charter provisions dealing with the advertisement, bidding and awarding of contracts for public improvements. If such charter provisions exist and conflict in any way with requirements of state competitive bidding laws, the applicability of the state laws will depend upon a determination of whether the conflicting charter provisions concern purely municipal affairs or affect a wider state interest. Such an inquiry presents a question of fact.
4. Where a municipality has contracted with a nonprofit corporation to operate public property, records pertaining to the operation, maintenance or improvement of such property or the administration or performance of the contract are public records open for public inspection, even though such records may be kept and maintained in the custody of the nonprofit corporation. Title 51 O.S. 24 (1971).

http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...0+749+485+484+

¶15 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. Public trusts organized under 60 O.S. 176 et seq. (1980) are "public bodies" within the meaning of the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 301 et seq. (1977).
2. Such public trusts must comply with and are subject to the Open Meeting Act.
3. Cameras and tape recorders may not be barred from the meetings of trustees of such public trusts.
4. The above findings apply equally to any and all public bodies subject to the Open Meeting Act.

And I swear I have seen the AG opinion on this subject, but here's a similar law and a result I'd expect which happened in Mississippi:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...n-small-groups

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) — The Mississippi Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a ruling that a government can't set up meetings of less than a majority of public officials to evade the state's Open Meetings Act.
The court ruled 9-0 that the city of Columbus was wrong to set up pairs of meetings with the mayor and three city council members apiece in 2014, avoiding the city council's quorum of four members. Those meetings were to discuss an agreement between the city and an economic development agency and maintenance of public buildings.

I think this lawsuit might surprise some folks.

[turnpup]

And I swear I have seen the AG opinion on this subject, but here's a similar law and a result I'd expect which happened in Mississippi:

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-sta...n-small-groups

Is this the one you're thinking about (beginning at paragraph 16)? http://www.oscn.net/applications/osc...p?CiteID=53345

[Midtowner]

Interestingly, I was just going through the list of interim studies in the Oklahoma House of Reps. There is an interim study requested by Rep. McCall (Speaker of the House) for "Modernization of the Open Meetings Act." This could go one of two ways--they're either going to gut it, which I expect, or they're going to open things up even more. I think the above AG opinion shows pretty conclusively that what the city is doing is not legal.

[Midtowner]

At any rate, the municipal counselors who think that the Council can have small meetings to get around the Open Meetings law are very likely just wrong. Municipal attorneys don't have special expertise in this area and rarely handle open meetings questions (obviously). You'll find them to be experts in code enforcement, municipal ordinances, condemnation and.. y'know.. things municipal counselors actually do.

As I've said, there's nothing new under the sun. I'm sure the folks who founded Alliance looked at these AG opinions and structured it so that it wasn't exactly the same as some of these other entities which were opened up to open meetings/open records by AG opinions and lawsuits. I also don't think at the end of the day, they're going to be different enough to remain private. I don't think restructuring how the not-for-profit is funded is going to really matter if the purpose of that not-for-profit is negotiating how public money is going to be spent. Perhaps Mayor Holt is in a unique position with his contacts in the legislature to look into changing the laws to make some of this permissible, expand the permissible use of executive session to discuss economic development, for example, but I suspect something like that might draw a referendum petition.

And just to be clear, until the courts say otherwise, those Supreme Court opinions are law. These issues have been back to the Attorney General numerous times and they just about always side with the right of the people to know what their government is doing. Now I am not making the jump to say there's necessarily any malicious intent here, but the only way for the people to know whether there is malicious intent or not with regarding to spending their money is to have open government.

[Urbanized]

Midtowner, people may be surprised to know that I don’t disagree with much of what you posted. That is, that there most definitely are more restrictive laws elsewhere - though I would point out that there are also known unintended and negative consequences to those laws - and also that there are plenty of knowledgeable people with good intentions who would deem the City’s activities improper. Witness media (who are specifically motivated and who as a group possess an innate righteousness about their mission), and also past AGs, other politicians, etc. The opinions of those people are just that, however, OPINIONS. Not law.

As I think you confirm with your posts, the activities of the City and its agencies do not clearly violate the letter of the law or even necessarily the spirit of the Oklahoma law, as written. I say “do not clearly” as opposed to “clearly do not,” because that would be untrue. The fact of the matter is that until a COURT rules on this in Oklahoma, they appear to be operating legally. Not an AG issuing an opinion in the distant past, but a court.

If a court DID rule against the City, they would merely be instructed not to do it that way anymore, by the way.

And of course I will stick by my belief that these activities have been thoroughly vetted by the City to make sure they comply with the law as currently interpreted by the courts, and (again my opinion) that the City’s motivations are not about keeping things from the public but instead about operating as quickly, efficiently and in as united a manner as possible. Viewed from this standpoint the procedures are understandable and even laudable. They without question are an example of government trying to act more like a quick and nimble business, which has much to do with the progress we have seen in OKC over the past quarter decade.

All of that said, I don’t disagree that a court challenge COULD change the ballgame regarding the meetings with Council members if it interprets and clarifies existing law in such a way that they are deemed improper. Which of course would only mean that staff would have to begin briefing Council members individually - which they would clearly do - and which would have some unintended consequences, create some inefficiencies, etc.. Of course there is JUST as good of a chance that the courts would rule the meetings to be in compliance with the existing law, which I obviously believe they are intended to be.

Regarding the structure of public trusts or the existence and practices of The Alliance, I do believe those hoping for change would be disappointed. These things have been challenged and clearly upheld in courts nationwide, and by agencies such as the IRS.

Also, the public is never, EVER going to change the fact that many agendas are published right at the publication deadline. Such is the nature of agenda deadlines, and this one is VERY clearly outlined in the law. If someone wants them to be published earlier, they should advocate for a change in the deadline as indicated in the law. Again, having been a part of the placement of many agenda items for public meetings, I can attest that last-minute publication is almost always due to a mad scramble to get items - including items unrelated to the ones you might be working on - finalized and in agendas so as to not miss a meeting entirely. The job of City Clerk is not a job I envy in the least.

[Midtowner]

Attorney General opinions are not just opinions. They are the law of the state until overturned by the courts or the legislature. They are a statement of how the State and all organs of government are to interpret the law. My prediction is that the city will lose this lawsuit. David Prater May have to step in and prosecute some officials. All of the records of Alliance not protected by some sort of privilege will very likely be opened to FOIA requests. I can predict all of this because sans the criminal prosecution which was only halted because powerful men can get away with shady things, has already happened under the same statutes.

It would be wise for the city to re-evaluate how it conducts business before this likely outcome occurs.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^
I think we will all be interested in the outcome, which would certainly clarify and put an end to this discussion, which I honestly detest. I respect that you are in the legal field and have some understanding that I don’t claim at all to possess. I don’t litigate; I make boats go around in a circle.

BUT what I can attest to is that the people we are talking about - at least the ones I know and have worked with - are in my own experience honorable, well-intentioned, innovative, and passionate about making Oklahoma City a vibrant, thriving, successful city. So far they have done an excellent job of this overall. I think many people forget where this city was only a couple of decades ago, or weren’t here, or weren’t paying attention. I hope that no matter what happens this progress continues without abatement.

[jedicurt]

^^^^^^^
I think we will all be interested in the outcome, which would certainly clarify and put an end to this discussion, which I honestly detest. I respect that you are in the legal field and have some understanding that I don’t claim at all to possess. I don’t litigate; I make boats go around in a circle.

BUT what I can attest to is that the people we are talking about - at least the ones I know and have worked with - are in my own experience honorable, well-intentioned, innovative, and passionate about making Oklahoma City a vibrant, thriving, successful city. So far they have done an excellent job of this overall. I think many people forget where this city was only a couple of decades ago, or weren’t here, or weren’t paying attention. I hope that no matter what happens this progress continues without abatement.

and i think few on here would disagree with your assessment that most are honorable, and well-intentioned... But that isn't the point... while i have joked about this a few times. i have never said that anything criminal or shady is going on... but the fact is that they are setting a precedent that could lead to very shady dealings if the right people were to eventually get involved. And i for one would like to fix a potential problem before it causes serious harm to the City, rather than after

[turnpup]

I don’t litigate; I make boats go around in a circle.

Love this! You've been hitting them out of the park lately, Urbanized.

[Midtowner]

I want the same thing you do. I have no agenda other than to tell you what my opinion is here. Folks can decide what that opinion is worth.

[Midtowner]

And that’s important. If funny business does go on, the city’s image could be wrecked. There is a tremendous amount of goodwill here with the electorate. I hope the city’s reaction here is not to stonewall but to open up and seek immediate legislative corrective action to protect the things which really need to be privileged while truly balancing the people’s right to know. This lawsuit concerns me because I’m not convinced Shadid’s intentions extend beyond his own ego.

[Rover]

Having total openness does not do away with corruption. It even can obfuscate it and drive it further underground. Many smaller issues will become political talking points without honest attempts to find the best public interest.

That said, there has to be a balance. Theoretically, that is what current law defines. Some say they are filling the letter and intent of the law, while others here think the law abets criminal behavior. So, let’s get this lawsuit going and put that argument on the table.

[Urbanized]

^^^^^^^^^
I would prefer this myself, though the City would likely disagree. I know there have been a few news reports, but this discussion really doesn’t extend far beyond readers of this forum, who are a minuscule portion of the population of OKC.

My guess - and it’s only that, a guess - is that a lawsuit is NOT filed. If it is filed and if the City prevails, the entire discussion goes away pretty much forever. It becomes black and white. On the other hand THREATENING the lawsuit casts a cloud of suspicion and potentially rewards the party threatening litigation by causing procedural or behavioral change in others even without a ruling or the expense and hassle of litigation. In a nutshell, losing would destroy the narrative.

I soppose we will see.

[jerrywall]

Apropos of nothing, I wish I could describe my job as making boats go in a circle. Sounds so much better than process quality auditor. And more fun.

[Midtowner]

Bingo.

¶20 It is, therefore, the official opinion of the Attorney General that:
1. The city council of a charter city is subject to the Open Meeting Act, 25 O.S. 301 et seq. (1977).
2. Matters pertaining to the proposed termination of a city manager fall within the meaning of "business of a public body," as that term is used in 25 O.S. 304(3) (1977) and in the remainder of the Open Meeting Act.
3. The city council of a charter city may not dismiss or demand the resignation of the city manager by a vote taken outside a public meeting or within an executive session and without notice to the public.
4. A single member of the city council of a charter city may not lawfully meet privately with each of the other council members separately to obtain signatures of a majority of the council upon a document and use that document to take an action otherwise required to be considered and voted upon at an open meeting.
5. A provision in a city charter providing that the city council may appoint, suspend or remove the city manager "at any time" does not permit the city council to so act in conflict with the Open Meeting Act.