that litigation concerns violations of open meetings act as alleged against the clark county park district board of commissioners at the feb seventeenth two thousand and fifteen meeting the four i discussed section two a just briefly wanted to discuss with the overarching purpose of the open meetings act is it's to provide a safety net for members of the public to understand what's going on in a public meeting it's to protect their right to know and to make sure that they have sufficient information to make the decision whether or not they want to show up meeting and discuss something that's of the importan and what's important in this matter in this february seventeenth meeting is that the underlying genda i didn't which are which were contesting here pertain to development of a private subdivision in a public park it's called the mill creek subdivision so that is something that i would ask the court to take into consideration when we think about what the standard is here are which for two six fifty motion taken and true are they the harvester before the meeting the only thing that they said was the only mention of what these items were were on the agenda which been which was provided as part of our three and they were just described as lease rates and restrictive cup and it was board approval of lease rates and board approval of request more and more information from a public body i think though that if you look at those if you look at the statute itself it states two things it says recite the nature of the matter being considered i won't argue that there was some discussion of the nature of the matter being considered lease rates and there was some discussion of the nature of the matter of restrictive covenants i in obviously  a person could reasonably imply restrictive covenants her team to property but the statute does go further than that it requires other information that will inform the public of the business being conducted there were a few issues but on the matter of section two eat you found that posting a link to the a copy of the agenda a copy of the separation agreement and then listing it under roll call action items and pointed terminations issues with sufficient we don't have anywhere near that level of disclosure here we're not what does that mean but they went more they said more than just a public recital though i'm not asking i'm not saying that it has to all be done right before the vote is taken or anything like that i'm simply saying that some point before the vote is taken in a way that is excessive well to the public the district needs to do more than just excite the name of a pretty generic statement lease rates they need to explain what that is for in it i don't think it's that i don't think it's really that difficult it says the nature of the business being conducted to me nature means essential elements are essential characteristics so i think it wouldn't be difficult to assume that if someone asked before the meeting about these things that would have been the same answer there are no i'm assuming no such thing and i don't know why we they were going that i believe there's what would make a difference if they would have actually shown up to him and told well and in fact your honor so there were two open sessions of this meeting during the first open session during the public comment period someone did get up and ask are you going to be here are you going to be discussing the mill creek police rates incumbents today and then gave a discussion and then asked the board some questions about it and didn't receive any reply your point is that the statute if it's complied with what's the public in a position where they don't have to go find out more about what this  creek subdivision would be appropriate based on my view of it because people aren't they they're not going to wash a lot of it's about canoes maybe they're not concerned about that he suggested a number of possibilities  we did act we did state we wanted to know what this was for and what it was well but were those facts related that there are other of the lease probations that might have been  yes there's i don't agree with this statement that this is actually to pretty clear and unambiguous what i wouldn't agree with is the notion that that means we know exactly how it should be a fight hard to shoot down what we're asking is for the court to determine if this meets the floor of what is required by that statute i don't think it's necessary to wait for the proof the supreme court ruling on that  imposition of some good faith test in the open meetings act it's did you buy a lady's minimum standards which are pretty minimal i mean we're not asking the board to resign every provision of a lease or something like that we're asking them to add a couple words so that people know what they're talking about i think if or if this court provided that guidance here which have the opportunity to do today but don't know what they need what they need to do  would even argue that i think that's way too onerous a standard we're not asking you said but please note you said detail that's when he should not that's when a show you need to have something so that people know discussion of police raids suppose you have a school or that place is on its agenda discussion of contractors goes into executive session talks about the school bus transportation contract comes you have to look at the agenda to determine what compliance with to do is think you have to look at the totality of the circumstances of what happened prior to that though and i believe that's what happened in the it and maybe you're not saying this i don't know but the description of the agenda item alone would have been insufficient to comply with to we but if there was then discussion in open session after they came out of exactly of session to indicate that agenda but the people at the meeting i mean if you have a meeting and you still don't know even the general idea of what was being voted on there's a problem i think as long as you as long as further form the public i'm not asking you to look at bat as evidence of what the minimum thresholds are i'm asking you to look at that and say of course i mean that seems to go above and beyond with the disclosure requirements are we decided what the what the meaning of that statute doesn't include now you talk about what it what are what does it need to include and i think here that if you look at it just saying restrictive restrictive covenants and lease rates it's just not enough under the circumstances you know can i give you a test that will work every time no but that's why we practice the law so the mil that i think that would be and this is a we're going to be talking about they'll create some division meat what i would buy what i would like to see and what i think is a the minimum should be set you should explain again pertinent details as well which use in that springfield opinion here is to me what pertinent details are one where where it what where if it's real estate but what kind of property are we talking about are we talking about real estate and if so tell us what real estate is it the mill creek subdivision or is it the entire park and to what is so with the lease rate i you just a very simple i'm talking about a word or two here in the agenda for a word or two that could have been spoken at that second session of the open meeting that would have resolved this issue or said mr small you're out of time you'll have time discussion of contracts from absolutely you can do that then you come out of your post session after you decide ok we're going to go with this bus transportation group and you move to approve a bus transportation contract with john doe best transportation right is adequate assuming there's a motion this was something more than just discussion of police raids restricted problems what takes it out of the example that i get so in with respect to lease rates the commissioner who moved the approval of the lease rates and it's really hard i don't know if you listen to the just ready for your script but it's very difficult to follow but the that wasn't a real transcript that was it was very difficult it is qui but the commissioner who moved to approve that said motion to approve the lease rates that came from the appraisal there was an appraisal that had previously been talked about at the mill creek subdivision what they were doing was subdividing a piece of it to do long term leases for private to raise money for private residences so they had an appraisal that also establish what the lease rates would be so commissioner guard just moved to approve the leas rates that came from the appraisal there was a second that was approved so that's what makes it so i believe that does make one issue if you're not careful here what we have what happens is we go down the slippery  slope and i know that sounds like law school and i'm but i'm old enough to talk back to law school so it's a slippery slope do we have to listen to mr small horn in first hand it would have been ok for jake small or it would've been ok as you sit here today to say approval mill creek subdivision restrictive covenants or mill creek subdivision lease rates that would've been ok for a change ok evan ok for me maybe for you guys i don't know but i can tell you the next step is inspect to it but maybe if we just talked about it the public recital at the meeting before final action that would be sufficient so maybe it's just a question of  what the legislature mean by public recess it could have been here's where we get stuck i think we're all talking about the same thing i don't think the agenda and the public recital before the motion really have to be different for toohey i think it's the same thing you can cover that not either side you can cover it with the agenda or you can cover it during commission or comment you can cover it during public comment you can cover it in the motion you covered in the discussion about the motion you can cover it just as long as it in front of the property i don't think i think what they did was adequate when you say do we have to identify the property what do you mean just a statement you mean this why do you mean the whole subdivision do you want the legal what is the green mil problem it was it's no big deal to add milk receptivity to it we're trying to hide anything or do anything wrong the fact of the matter is it was clear this was a this was a big deal it was clear what we were doing and you know if it gets sent back i suppose will make it more clear at the trial court but i think then that they met the burden it's a very minimal burden they met that  i just wanted to see first i did not file the original complaint in this case right knew nothing about the mill creek subdivision until well after this litigation is underway and i just want to make a point and i mention that because i think section two easy is it's to be interpreted as a protection for members of the public so that not necessarily so when when they come to that though the agenda is supposed to let people know very generally what the public body is going to be talking about this section to eat i think is in there so that when after the vote is taking someone can walk out of that room and explain he's least in the general sense what that vote was for i know you would agree with ms gallery that the agenda description could be even more generic don't know what was on there but just as long because it if the chairman got up and said that then when they came back and they voted on it people will know what just happened i mean that's the that's the point here that they need to know every single detail you know the open meetings act i think you have to i think you have to go back to the what the language so you have the word it says the nature of it whether it's nature well webster is dead dictionary there's about fifteen definitions of nature but the one that is pertinent to this discussion says the characteristics essential elements are identified in some fashion yeah i have to identify it so if we're talking about a it's going to cost and all the rest of this absolutely not and i believe that you with much prescience came up with one and notion in your in your  springfield opinion when you you said well you were saying the trial judge's ruling but you said the guideline was you don't need to give a figure out what those are i think that's a basic enough here you give some guidance by showing all that they would have needed to have said mill creek subdivision and they were and they would have needed to say for the co mill creek subdivision i think that's guidance for a park district they don't have very many other types of issues that come up if you say a vendor contract here in the clar guidance here would go a long way because it's not this should be as complicated or as slippery of a slope as we're talking about you don't have to give every single detail i don't you think you have to get the amount a green and i think the springfield school district probably met the requirements of toohey is the name the guy who is being separated and they did it was put in the employment