Opinion ID: 2335720
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The December 14 site visit was properly convened.

Text: Gold Country also argues that the December 14 site visit was [i]mproperly [c]onvened and that Matheson's motion for reconsideration was defective. Gold Country considers these to be violations of the Open Meetings Act. Both arguments are unpersuasive. Borough Code provides that the chairperson or a quorum of the Board members may call a special meeting of the Board. [43] Both parties appear to assume that Matheson, who filed for reconsideration, also called the site visit. Matheson was the acting chairperson in November and December 2004; [44] she therefore had the authority to call a special meeting in the form of the requested site inspection. Gold Country's argument that Matheson's motion for reconsideration was invalid is without legal support. Gold Country argues that Matheson was required to provide written or oral reasons for her motion for reconsideration when she filed it and that her failure to do so rendered the motion itself, and the related portions of the December 15 meeting, invalid. But Matheson's motion for reconsideration complied with the Platting Board's rules: she was on the prevailing side of the initial motion, she provided notice of reconsideration before the close of business on the following workday, and she explained her reasons for seeking reconsideration at the outset of the following meeting. [45]