[Job]

I heard that Long Beach got nailed for having an improper closed session. Does anyone know anything about this? They usually keep everything close to the vest there.

[eric.hanke]

I heard that Long Beach got nailed for having an improper closed session. Does anyone know anything about this? They usually keep everything close to the vest there.

Any idea what committee?

[Job]

Any idea what committee?

It was the Town itself. Their attorney brought into a closed meeting an attorney who wanted Long Beach to pass a resolution saying that the FIPs who own houses on the beach own all of the beach up to the water.

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2012/0...01293540811.txt

Public access counselor says Long Beach council violated open door law

By Julie McClure
Staff Writer
Published: Thursday, July 5, 2012 5:07 PM CDT
LONG BEACH — Indiana's Public Access Counselor has issued an opinion that the Long Beach Town Council violated the Indiana Open Door Law May 29 by conducting a closed meeting to discuss possible litigation over beach ownership rights.

The complaint was filed by town council member Jane Neulieb on May 30. In the complaint, Neulieb alleged that Robert Schaefer, Long Beach Town Council president, and Jeff Thorne, attorney for the Long Beach Town Council, called a closed meeting for May 29 at 7 p.m. The reason given was to discuss pending litigation.

Neulieb wrote in the complaint that Michael Knight, an attorney representing unknown residents on the lakefront, had sent letters earlier to residents along the lake saying there would be possible litigation if "we (the town council) did not change an ordinance/resolution to their way of thinking."

According to Neulieb, the dispute involves ongoing concerns about beach ownership rights in Long Beach. According to a Long Beach ordinance, which follows Indiana Department of Natural Resources policy, the dividing line on Lake Michigan between state and non-state beach ownership is the ordinary high watermark, which is an elevation of 581.5 feet as adopted by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the Indiana Natural Resources Commission. "Since the lake is low, that includes quite a bit of beach that is in state ownership," Neulieb said. "Above the water mark is private ownership."

Click here to find out more!
Neulieb said some anonymous beachfront owners have hired Knight to argue that all private property goes to the water's edge, with the exception of a "carrying place" or walk-through where the public could pass through, but not sit, fish or stop in the area.

The closed meeting took place on May 29 and Knight was presenting his arguments to the town council, according to Neulieb.

"I asked that the meeting be stopped due to the fact that the meeting was violating the open meeting law," Neulieb wrote in her complaint. "I read the portion from the Public Access Handbook that deals with meeting in executive session with the other lawyer. I explained this was due to the fact he is an adversary."

Indiana's Open Door Law does allow public boards to meet in closed session to discuss pending litigation or litigation that has been threatened in writing. The law states, "executive sessions held pursuant to this subsection may not include competitive or bargaining adversaries and the discussion must be necessary for competitive or bargaining reasons."

According to Neulieb's complaint, Thorne stated he did not want to hear about the law from me and immediately started talking to the other attorney. "I repeated this information and they continued the meeting despite my calling this a violation, the meeting involved Knight giving us a printed resolution that if passed by us would resolve their legal argument."

Neulieb said she took pictures and continued listening to Knight.

"Pat McDonald, town council member, then said 'she's taking pictures of us.' Robert Schaefer was visibly angry along with Jeff Thorne and Robert Schaefer yelled this meeting is over! The meeting was nearly one and one half hours despite my reading of the law," Neulieb wrote in her complaint.

In his opinion, Public Access Counselor Joseph B. Hoage said that Knight represented those persons who stated their intent in writing to file a legal claim against the council if the council took action. "At the May 29, 2012 executive session, Mr. Knight outlined his client's position in an attempt to persuade the council to rescind the previously passed ordinance. Based on the following, it is my opinion that, as to the issue for which the council met in executive session on May 29, 2012, Mr. Knight and his clients were competitive and/or bargaining adversaries of the council. Accordingly, it is my opinion that the council violated the Open Door Law when Mr. Knight was admitted into the executive session to discuss litigation that had been threatened in writing."

Hoage added that the council could have held an open, public meeting and allowed Knight to make an identical presentation, but his presentation would not be allowed in closed session pursuant to the law.

In a telephone interview Tuesday, attorney Michael Bergerson, who sent a response June 19 to the public access counselor, said the counselor's statement that the council violated the Open Door Law was an "opinion," and not a ruling. "It carries zero weight," he said. "It's his opinion." Thorne said he had nothing to add to Bergerson's comments.

According to Bergerson's letter, Bergerson's law firm represents the town of Long Beach. "For the record, no violation of the Indiana Open Door Law occurred," the letter sated.

The letter says on April 20, at a public town council meeting, an executive session to discuss "pending or threatened litigation in writing" was approved by a unanimous vote. The letter from Bergerson also states, " 'An executive session is a meeting from which the public is excluded, except that the governing body may admit those persons necessary to carry out its purpose.' Obviously, the fact that Mr. Knight was going to be present at this executive session was or should have been known to all, especially the complainant," Bergerson wrote, referring to Neulieb.

Bergerson also said in the letter that there is no litigation pending. "Apparently, complainant (Neulieb) believes that I.C. 5-14-6.1 ( (2) precluded the attendance of Mr. Knight as an 'adversary.' However this section is applicable in competitive bargaining matters and not in matters of threatened litigation. Bergerson wrote in the response that no vote was ever taken or ever contemplated to be taken. "No final action occurred and the complaint is without merit."

Neulieb disagrees with that assessment.

"I'm really trusting that this violation will remind the council to appreciate that our democracy depends on government doing their work in the open," Neulieb said.

She added that she anticipates her open door law complaint will likely be discussed at the council's next meeting at 7 p.m. Monday at the town center. The meeting is open to the public.

[Job]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2012/0...01293540811.txt

I have a few questions:

1. Why would Thorne have helped the attorney who wanted to take away beach rights from the people who do not live on the beach?

2. Why didn't Thorne know about the Open Door law?


3. Why did the Town have to hire another lawyer to respond to the complaint?

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2012/0...10791086947.txt

In Long Beach, this discussion needs to be in public

Published: Friday, July 6, 2012 5:08 PM CDT
It’s time for the Long Beach Town Council to consider the ongoing dispute about beach ownership rights out in the open in public meetings, where all who have an interest or stake in the decision can make their opinions known.

Town council member Jane Neulieb filed a complaint with Indiana’s Public Access Counselor alleging the council violated Indiana’s Open Door Law on May 29 when an attorney representing some anonymous beachfront owners attempted to address the council in closed session about changing the town’s current resolution about beach ownership. Public Access Counselor Joseph B. Hoage agreed with Neulieb, saying the council could have held an open, public meeting and allowed the attorney to speak, but this conduct would not be allowed in a closed session. Hoage’s opinion is that the council violated Indiana’s Open Door Law when the attorney was admitted into the closed session.

It is no secret that Long Beach beachfront owners have been at odds amongst themselves over beach ownership issues – so why should it be a secret about what some of them want the council to do?

We encourage the council, beachfront property owners, attorneys and interested bystanders to do the right thing in this case. Put this issue out in the public domain and hear comments and complaints in public board meetings. And by the way, Indiana’s Open Door Law requires all votes to be taken in public meetings, where the public can view how their elected officials vote.

*
We agree with Councilwoman Neulieb, who said he hoped the public access counselor’s opinion “will remind the council to appreciate that our democracy depends on government doing their work in the open.”

Very well said.

[Ang]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2012/0...8e678509877.txt

Long Beach Council attorney defends his position

By Lois Tomaszewski
Staff Writer

Published: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 5:06 PM CDT

LONG BEACH — The attorney hired by the Long Beach Town Council to respond to an accusation of a open door law violation defended his position that the town did no wrong.

Michael S. Bergerson told the council that the opinion of Indiana's public access counselor Joseph B. Hoage is an interpretation of state law and does not constitute a ruling or notice of violation. He told the council that his credentials as an attorney for various municipal boards and county agencies indicated that he was familiar with the law. In his opinion, a meeting the council held with an attorney representing property owners who were threatening litigation over beach access was permitted.

Bergerson was contacted by board president Robert Schaefer to be hired at the billable rate of $150 per hour to look into the complaint, which was filed with the state by councilwoman Jane Neulieb.

"In my review of the meeting minutes, correspondence and emails after the decision was made to have this meeting, no violation of the open door law occurred," Bergerson said.



The open meeting law prohibits a board from going into executive session for several reasons, many of which involve negotiation or discussion concerning litigation. Bergerson said Hoage's opinion failed to realize the significance of the terms competitive and bargaining which were used as "adjectives" to the term adversary. Because Michael Knight, an attorney representing the property owners, was there to present information to the board, his presence in an executive session could not be considered adversarial in a competitive or bargaining reference.

Neulieb took exception to Bergerson's comment that the complaint and subsequent opinion from Hoage was meaningless.

"It may be meaningless to you but it is not to the people of Long Beach," Neulieb said. "It's important that they see their government in action."

She claims the board's attorney Jeff Thorne coached Knight on what to say to the council and claims other board members disparaged her. She said she tried to stop the meeting twice when she realized that Knight could be considered an adversary because of the property owners he represents. The next day she called the state and was advised to file a written complaint.

She also complained that as a member of the council, Bergerson should have asked the council members what occurred during the May 29 meeting. She also questioned why he did not let each council member review what his response to the state would be.

Schaefer said the council hired Bergerson to act as an independent counsel because they needed to draft a response and they believed no violation had occurred. The board took no action and stayed on the intended purpose, which was to "discuss pending litigation."

"The council was not in a position to draft a response," Schaefer said. "No one felt comfortable writing our own response."

After discussion and some public comments, councilman Peter Byvoets said the issue should be put to rest. "Don't spend any more time on this," he said. "We are just wasting time."

[Job]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/articles/2012/0...8e678509877.txt

Again I ask:

1. Why would Thorne have helped the attorney who wanted to take away beach rights from the people who do not live on the beach?

2. Why didn't Thorne know about the Open Door law?


3. Why did the Town have to hire another lawyer to respond to the complaint?