Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 5 of 7 · from the scan, no model involved
counties over this matter in the past.
It’s doubtful—or at least arguable—whether this general fear of getting sued meets the open meeting law’s requirement for “actual or probable” litigation. If the county board of supervisors can close a public meeting any time its legal counsel gets nervous over possible litigation, they will have created for themselves an easy way out of discussing controversial issues in public. That kind of loophole might be applied to any number of issues that come before the supervisors.
The public has a right to hear what its elected officials think about controversial issues. Did any of our five supervisors argue behind closed doors for adopting an ordinance to regulate, test and monitor sludge applied in the county? Did any of them argue for the draft ordinance they have sat on for years? Did anyone dissent from the policy of lifting the ban and substituting nothing in its place? Voters ought to know, but they were not allowed to listen, or to give the board their views.
Now that they have secretly deliberated and decided on their preferred course, the supervisors plan to hold a “public hearing” on sludge on October 2. This gives the pub
96.4%