Petition 9 - Executive Session Public Authorization.pdf

CITIZEN
PETITION
pursuant to Phoenix City Charter, Chapter IV, Sec. 22, requests the City Council to:
PROVIDE ANSWERS
REGARDING EXECUTIVE
SESSION PUBLIC
AUTHORIZATION
Submitted by:
Jerry Van Gasse
4610 E Via Estrella
Phoenix, AZ 85028
(602) 622-3515
board@goodgoat.net

CONTENTS
Summary
The petitioner's case: probler
watt
supporting’ facts.
should adopt if, anc
Request for Council Action
ihe legal request: a recorded vote of the City Council, within fi een days, approving or
denying the Proposed Measure exacily as written.
Proposed Measure
measi % the ie’ Cc vote Fat E OR, wri ten in tid 44
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-02 - Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT goodgoat ne Page 2 of 10

SUMMARY
The Problem
State law allows a city council to meet in executive session “[o]n a public majority
vote of the members constituting a quorum,” and only for listed purposes.
Every year since at least December 2022, the Phoenix City Council has approved a
list of executive-session dates for the coming year. Those items cite § 38-431.03(A)
generally and name no subjects. The subjects, and the specific legal authority for
closing each one, appear later, in notices posted at least 24 hours before each
session. When the Council approved the 2026 dates, the City Attorney described the
item as setting the dates “for planning and getting it on the calendar.”
Some sessions follow a different, visible path. A special meeting is called, and the
Council votes in public on “Item 1 Vote to call for Executive Session” immediately
before the session. Other sessions are held on dates that appear on no approved
list, under notices that do not say which Council action called them.
The public record does not explain, in one place:
* how Phoenix views these paths;
* how each closed matter is authorized:
* how each member's vote is recorded;
* what Phoenix believes about a member's personal exposure when acting on
legal advice.
What the Proposed Measure Does
Directs the City Manager to provide attributable written answers, within thirty days or
before the Council votes to approve executive-session dates for 2027, whichever comes
first, to four questions and their subparts. The questions cover how each City Council
executive-session matter is publicly authorized, how each member's vote on it is
recorded, and what Phoenix believes legal advice does and does not protect for an
individual member. The City Manager must place the complete response in the public
legislative file for this petition.

SUMMARY
Why the Council Should Adopt It
Phoenix uses more than one authorization path, and nothing on the record
explains the difference.
The paths are:
* calendar sessions rest on a yearly date list with no subjects (Facts 1—3):
* asession may be added by a later Council item that again names no subject (Fact 4):
* special-meeting sessions are preceded by a public vote immediately before the
session, on a notice that already lists the subject and the paragraph of law relied on
(Facts 5-6).
Ordinary notices do not say which Council action called the session, and some sessions
fall on dates no list approved (Fact 7). Questions 1~3 ask how each path authorizes a
closed matter and when the City considers the difference material.
Members should know how the law reaches them.
In a suit brought by the Attorney General, a court may impose a civil penalty on an
individual member for a knowing violation, which the City may not pay for the member. It
may decline to penalize a member whose objection “is noted on a public record” (Fact 11).
State law separately protects officials who act in good-faith reliance on a written opinion of
the city attorney (Fact 10). No member can judge where he or she stands without knowing
how votes on closed matters are recorded (Question 3(d)), and what the City believes oral
or written advice does and does not protect (Question 4).
How votes are recorded matters.
Under Council Rule 7(i), a failure to vote or a voluntary abstention counts as an “aye”
unless excused by an announced conflict, and Rule 7(1) requires individual votes in the
journal for formal actions (Fact 9). The published results of the 2025 special-meeting votes
record only “Approved,” and one vote covered twelve matters (Fact 6). Question 3(d) asks
how the City records each member’s actual conduct and attributed vote on each matter.
The questions ask for positions, not concessions.
Every question allows “no,” “none” or “the City cannot determine,” with an explanation. The
petition assumes no violation and adjudicates no one’s liability.
The Facts
1, On Dec. 14, 2022 (Item 57), Dec. 6, 2023 (Item 36) and Nov. 13, 2024 (Item 21), the Council
approved requests to call executive sessions on fourteen 2023 dates, seventeen 2024 dates
and seventeen 2025 dates, respectively, each “pursuant to” A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A). None of
the items identifies a subject or a specific paragraph of § 38-431.03(A) for any date.
4 a6 34 oy
2. On Feb. 19, 2025 (Add-on Item 82), the Council approved a revised list of seventeen 2025
dates, described as “an amendment to the previous action taken by the City Council on
November 13, 2024.”

SUMMARY
3. On Nov. 5, 2025 (Item 20), the Council approved, 8-1, eleven executive-session dates for
2026, “pursuant to” A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A), with no subjects listed. The minutes record the
City Attorney's statements that the item “set the dates for Executive Session,” that its
purpose “was for planning and getting it on the calendar, similar to policy and formal
bain ok and that stat nose the agenda 24 hours before the meeting.
Souce: C nity ¢ Council i ung agenda, Nov. 5, 2025, Item 20: minutes. Nov. 5,
4. On Mar. 26, 2025 (Item 34), the Council approved a request to call an executive session on
Apr. 3, 2025, a date on neither 2025 list. The Apr. 3 notice lists one item, interviews of
candidates for appointment to the City Ethics Commission, under A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A)(1)
and
aca
Sot
Phoeni City ¢ Council Executive S
5. Notices for special meetings called at the Mayor's request under Charter Chapter IV, Section
20 list “Item 1 Vote to call for Executive Session,” followed by the statement “If authorized by
the majority of the members, the Executive Session will be held immediately after the vote
and will not be open to the public,” and er the executive- “Session agenda.
S Cp ux, Notice of Meeti oeni yu ting, July 29, 2025: Sept. 17,
6. The City’s published Notices of Results for the special meetings of July 29, Sept. 17 and
Nov. 18, 2025 each record Item 1, the vote to call for executive session, as “Approved,” and
record the executive-session matters as “Discussed.” They do not list individual members’
votes. The Nov. 18, 2025 notice lists twelve executive-session matters under a single Item 1
voie.
7, Ordinary executive-session notices state that the Council will meet “for the purposes of
discussion or consultation regarding the items listed on the agenda, all as authorized by
A.R.S. §38-431.03, A.1 through A.7.” The notices for Jan. 20, Feb. 3, Feb. 24, Mar. 10 and
Apr. 28, 2026 do not identify the Council action that called the session. Feb. 3, Mar. 10 and
Apr. 28, 2026 are not among the dates approved on Nov. 5, 2025. No record of the Council
AGHO6 those three sessions was located.
me
Phoenix Cily Council E
8. A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A) provides that “[o]n a public majority vote of the members constituting
a quorum, a public body may hold an executive session but only for the following purposes,”
which it lists. A.R.S. § 38-431.02(B) requires an notice to “state the
“ain
of law Sepenn the session.”
provision ee
source. ALR.S. §§ 38-434 O3(A), 38-4310
9. Two Council rules govern how votes are counted and recorded:
* Rule 7(i): “A failure to vote or a voluntary abstention shall count as an ‘aye’ vote unless
excused by an announced conflict of interest.”
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-02 - Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT - goodgeat net Page 5 of 10

SUMMARY
* Rule 7(I): the journal must record individual votes on “all ordinances, resolutions,
franchises, formal actions, and liquor license applications recommended for
disapproval.”
10. A.R.S. § 38-446 provides that no public officer or employee is personally liable for acts done
in an official capacity “in good faith reliance on written opinions” of, among others, “the city
or town attorney of the city or town.”
11. A.R.S. § 38-431.07(A) authorizes the Attorney General to sue an individual member of a
public body for a knowing violation of the Open Meeting Law. It provides civil penalties,
which the public body may not pay on the member's behalf. It provides that, if a person
“objected to the action of the public body and the objection is noted on a public record, the
court may choose not to impose a civil penalty on that person.”
OE PALS
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-02 - Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT - goodgoat net Page 6 of 10

REGUESTFORCOUNCILACTION
Petitioner Jerry Van Gasse
Address 4610 E Via Estrella
Phoenix, AZ 85028
Phone (602) 622-3515
Email board@goodgoat.net
Date presented October 21, 2026
Requested Legal Action
For the City of Phoenix Council to vote on the Proposed Measure exactly as
written.
Summary of Proposed Measure
Directs the City Manager to provide attributable written answers, within thirty days or before the
Council votes to approve executive-session dates for 2027, whichever comes first, to four
questions and their subparts. The questions cover how each City Council executive-session
matter is publicly authorized, how each member’s vote on it is recorded, and what Phoenix
believes legal advice does and does not protect for an individual member. The City Manager
must place the complete response in the public legislative file for this petition.
Council Action Required
Phoenix City Charter, Chapter IV, Section 22 provides that a written petition presented to the
Council at a regular meeting shall be acted upon by the Council in the regular course of
business, within fifteen (15) days. Section 8 provides that the Council shall act only by
resolution, ordinance, franchise, or formal recorded action. The Proposed Measure is a
formal recorded action.
Acting upon this petition requires that vote, as its own Formal Agenda item, with this Request
and the Proposed Measure attached. Any change in the substance of the Proposed Measure, in
whole or in part, makes it a different measure from the one proposed by the petitioner, and a
vote on it is not action on this petition. Referral, a staff report, a General Information Packet
entry, continuation, answers to some or all questions, or a consolidated vote also does not act
upon this petition.

PROPOSED MEASURE
Executive-Session Public Authorization and Member Responsibility (Formal Action)
SECTION 1. Council Direction and Deadline
The City Council directs the City Manager to provide the attributable written answers specified below.
The complete response shall be placed in the public legislative file for Citizen Petition JV-20261021-02
no later than the earlier of (a) thirty (30) days after the Council adopts this Proposed Measure, or (b) the
time the Council votes on any item approving, calling, or scheduling executive sessions for calendar year
2027.
SECTION 2. Required Written Answers
The City Manager shall assign each question to the official or employee with direct knowledge,
responsibility, or subject-matter competence. The assigned person shall answer each numbered question
and each labeled subpart separately and completely.
1. Does Phoenix consider a Council vote approving future executive-session dates to be the public
vote required by A.R.S. § 38-431.03(A) for matters placed on those dates after the vote?
1(a). If yes, identify the authority supporting that position.
1(b). If yes, explain how the vote authorizes matters that had not yet been identified.
1(c). If yes, explain how the vote authorizes statutory exemptions that had not yet been identified.
2. After a public agenda identifies an executive-session matter and the statutory authority asserted for
excluding the public, does Phoenix require the Council to vote in public before excluding the
public for that matter?
2(a). Describe whether and how Phoenix’s answer changes depending on how or when the
executive session was scheduled. Identify any circumstances Phoenix considers material and the
authority supporting each distinction. If Phoenix considers no scheduling circumstance material,
state that expressly.
3. Under Phoenix’s current rules and practices, how is each executive-session matter authorized?
3(a). Identify the authorizing motion, if any. If no authorizing motion exists, state that expressly.
3(a)(1). Identify who prepares the authorizing motion.
3(b). Identify the authorizing vote, if any. If no authorizing vote occurs, state that expressly.
3(b)(1). Identify when the authorizing vote occurs.
3(c). May multiple executive-session matters be approved by a single vote?
3(c)(1). If yes, describe the circumstances in which Phoenix permits that procedure and identify the
supporting authority.
3(d). Describe how the City records each Councilmember’s conduct and legally attributed vote for
each executive-session matter. Answer each of the following separately:
3(d)(1). How does the City record the member’s stated “aye” or “nay” vote?
3(d)(2). How does the City record the member’s absence?
3(d)(3). How does the City record the member’s announced conflict of interest?
3(d)(4). How does the City record the member’s voluntary abstention?
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-02 - Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT goodgoat.net Page 8 of 10

PROPOSED MEASURE
3(d)(S). How does the City record the member’s failure to answer?
3(d)(6). How does the City record the member’s refusal to answer?
3(e). How is the authorizing motion linked to the executive-session notice?
3(f). How is the authorizing vote linked to the executive-session notice?
3(g). How is the authorizing motion linked to the executive-session agenda item?
3(h). How is the authorizing vote linked to the executive-session agenda item?
3(i). How is the authorizing motion linked to the executive-session meeting?
3(j). How is the authorizing vote linked to the executive-session meeting?
3(k). What public record, if any, shows the authorization? If no public record exists, state that
expressly.
Does Phoenix take the position that advice from an attorney for the public body exempts or
otherwise protects an individual Councilmember from liability for conduct that violates the Arizona
Open Meeting Law?
4(a). What is Phoenix’s position when the member received oral advice?
4(b). What is Phoenix’s position when the member relied in good faith on a written opinion that
may fall within A.R.S. § 38-446?
4(c). Does Phoenix’s position differ between oral advice and a written opinion that may fall within
A.R.S. § 38-446?
4(d). If so, identify and explain each difference.
4(e). Identify every condition Phoenix believes must be satisfied for oral advice to protect the
member.
A(f). Identify every condition Phoenix believes must be satisfied for a written opinion to protect the
member.
4(g). Identify and address every materially contrary authority considered by Phoenix.
4(h). Does Phoenix’s position change if the member knew that the conduct was unlawful?
A(i). If the answer to Question 4(h) is yes, explain how Phoenix’s position changes.
4(j). Does Phoenix’s position change if the member had reason to know that the conduct was
unlawful?
4(k). If the answer to Question 4(j) is yes, explain how Phoenix’s position changes.
The requested response to Question 4 and its subparts is a statement of the City’s general legal position,
not personal legal advice or an adjudication of any person’s liability.
SECTION 3. Written-Answer Standards
1. Reproduce each numbered question, labeled subpart, and nested subpart unchanged immediately
before its separate answer.
Identify the person answering, that person’s title and department, and whether the answer is based
on direct knowledge, identified records, identified legal authority, or another stated source.
When a question asks for a yes-or-no answer, begin with “yes,” “no,” or “the City cannot
determine,” before providing any explanation.
{ities UAZEN Petition JV-20261021-02 - Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT goodgoat.net Page 9 of 10

PROPOSED MEASURE
When a question asks for the City’s position, interpretation, policy, or practice, state it expressly
and identify the supporting authority, records, written policies, and materially contrary authority
considered. State expressly if no City position, written policy, or uniform practice exists.
Distinguish an existing fact, current practice, written policy, legal position, and proposed future
action. Do not present one as another.
If the City cannot answer a question, state that expressly, identify the information needed to answer
it, identify the person or entity believed to possess that information, and describe the steps taken to
obtain it.
If the City contends that any part of an answer cannot lawfully be disclosed, answer every
reasonably separable part and identify the specific legal authority asserted for not answering the
remainder without disclosing protected information.
8. A response to a rephrased or different question does not answer the submitted question.
SECTION 4. Public Response Package
The City Manager shall place the following in the public legislative file for Citizen Petition
JV-20261021-02:
1. The complete written answers;
2, A response index matching every numbered question, every labeled subpart, and every nested
subpart to its separate answer or expressly stated inability to answer; and
A specific citation to each record, legal authority, or written policy relied upon, including a direct,
stable public link when one is available.
SECTION 5. Scope
This Proposed Measure directs written answers. It does not submit or incorporate a public-records request
and does not require production of cited records. Any public-records request concerning the subject
remains a separate request with an independent receipt date, scope, process, and legal effect.
SECTION 6. Continuing Responsibility
The City Manager remains responsible for the completeness and timely placement of the response
package notwithstanding assignment of individual questions to another official, employee, department, or
contractor.