Petition 15 - Executive Session Attendance and Participation.pdf

CITIZEN
PETITION
pursuant to Phoenix City Charter, Chapter IV, Sec. 22, requests the City Council to:
PROVIDE ANSWERS
REGARDING EXECUTIVE
SESSION ATTENDANCE AND
PARTICIPATION
Submitted by:
Jerry Van Gasse
4610 E Via Estrella
Phoenix, AZ 85028 ;
(602) 622-3515
board@goodgoat.net
fo-al-2h

CONTENTS
Sumraary
wi vy the Council
Should west?
adont 2 if, and the facts
Bequest for “oumer fri pl
Sa iain Measure
asure the € | ritten in t City’s own LAMYE form
etition JV-20261021-06 Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOOD/GOAT goodgoat net Page 2 of 9

SUMMARY
The Problem
State law limits who may be in the room during an executive session. Besides
Councilmembers and the officers and employees the statute provides for, only
people “whose presence is reasonably necessary” may attend. A meeting can also
take place “through technological devices,” so participants may not be in the room at
all.
What the public can see of a Phoenix executive session is the posted notice. The
notices reviewed state the date, a 12:00 pm start, a room on the 12th floor of City
Hail and the list of items. They do not say:
« who will attend:
* how anyone will participate:
*« when the session will end.
No published record of who attended an ordinary session, or when it began and
ended, was located.
No published City rule was located that explains any of the following, and the
Council's rules of proceedings, City Code § 2-60, address none of them:
* how Phoenix decides that a nonmember’s presence is necessary:
¢ what record it keeps of who attended:
* what the public may observe;
* how remote participants are verified and kept private.
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 five questions and to place the complete response in this petition’s public
iegisiative file. The questions ask:
* who may attend a City Council executive session, and how necessity is decided
and recorded:
* what records show attendance and timing, and which details are public:
* what the public can observe without hearing confidential discussion:
* what rules govern remote participation.
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-06 Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT - goodgeat net Page 3 of 9

Why the Council Should Adopt It
Who attends is a fact about the session, not part of its content.
State law makes executive-session minutes and discussions confidential (Fact 4). The
Arizona Court of Appeals has held, in a decision that is now final, that this confidentiality “is
extended only to ‘[m]inutes' and ‘discussions,” and that “attendance is not a
discussion” (Fact 6). Questions 1 through 4 ask about attendance, timing and observation.
They do not ask what was said.
The legal limit on attendance can only be checked if attendance is known.
Only people whose presence is reasonably necessary may attend (Facts 1, 7). No
published source shows who decides necessity, on what standard or what record is kept
(Fact 11). Questions 1 and 2 ask the City to describe its process and records, and to say
which details it treats as public and why.
The City already publishes timing for some sessions.
The results notices for three 2025 special meetings called to vote on an executive session
record when each meeting was called to order and when it adjourned (Fact 9). The
ordinary notices reviewed state a scheduled start and no end (Fact 8). Question 3 asks
what records exist for all sessions and what the City considers public.
Remote participation needs rules the public can see.
State law allows meetings through technological devices (Fact 2) and requires the Council
to instruct those present about confidentiality (Fact 5). A remote participant’s location,
surroundings and devices are outside the room. The Attorney General's handbook
recommends that public bodies “Develop procedures to clearly identify members”
participating remotely in public meetings (Fact 10). Question 5 asks what rules Phoenix
applies to remote participation in executive sessions, without asking for anything that would
compromise security.
Answers come before any rule change.
The Council should know the City’s current rules and practices before deciding whether to
change them. Each question allows the answer that no record, rule or requirement exists,
and each such answer tells the Council something it needs to know.
The Facts
1. “Executive session” means a gathering of a quorum from which the public is excluded. “In
addition to the members of the public body, officers, appointees and employees as provided
in section 38-431.03 and the auditor general as provided in section 41-1279.04, only
individuals whose presence is reasonably necessary in order for the public body to carry out
its executive session responsibilities may attend the executive session.”
2. A*meeting” under the Open Meeting Law means “the gathering, in person or through
technological devices. of a quorum of the members of a public body at which they discuss,
propose or take legal action.”

SUMMARY
3. Executive-session minutes must include, among other things, “The members of the public
body recorded as either present or absent.”
4, Minutes of and discussions made at executive sessions must be kept confidential except
from:
« the members of the public body that met:
* officers or employees who were the subject of a personnel discussion;
* the Auditor General for an authorized audit:
* acounty attorney or the Attorney General investigating alleged Open Meeting Law
violations.
5. “The public body shall instruct persons who are present at the executive session regarding
the confidentiality requirements of this article.”
COL PRIS SD BOO OT)
6. Ina published opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals held:
* the confidentiality established by § 38-431.03(B) “is extended only to ‘[mJinutes’ and
“discussions”:
* “attendance is not a discussion’:
* the court “cannot extend the confidentiality established in § 38-431.03(B) beyond its
plainly stated terms.”
lt held that the trial court erred in treating mere attendance as confidential. It also upheld the
trial court's refusal to order production of executive-session minutes. The Arizona Supreme
Court dismissed a petition for review on Aug. 21, 2026, and the mandate issued Sept. 17,
2026.
7. The City’s Executive Session Agendas webpage states: “E-session may only include
individuals whose presence is reasonably necessary for the public body to carry out its E-
ession responsibilities. A.R.S. § 38-431(2).”
SOLICE. wy, poy GY Be © z
8. The City’s notices for the Council executive sessions of June 9 and Sept. 1, 2026 state the
date, a 12:00 pm start time and the location (Central Conference Room, 12th Floor, Phoenix
City Hall), followed by the agenda items. They do not list attendees, state an ending time or
address remote participation.
> of Pnoenix, Notice of Me 2 OGSSion, GuNE Y. ZUZo and
9. The City’s Notices of Results for the special meetings of July 29, Sept. 17 and Nov. 18,
2025, each called to vote on an executive session, record:
¢ the call to order (12:04, 1:05 and 12:36 pm):
* approval of the vote to call the executive session;
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-06 Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT - goodgoat net Page 5 of 9

SUMMARY
« the executive-session item as “Discussed”:
* adjournment (2:08, 2:35 and 2:19 pm).
do not list attended.
ey who
. ea red of Ph Iotices of Ras
10. The Attorney General's handbook states that members unable to attend a public meeting in
person “may participate by telephone or video or internet conference’ if not prohibited by
applicable statutes. Among its guidelines, it recommends that public bodies “Develop
procedures to clearly identify members that are participating by telephonic, video or internet
communications.”
OeNEelai, OX A eet AG ON S742 7.10.3, at At 7.2R 7-26 IR to 7.97 7-27 (rev fray
S
11. Phoenix City Code § 2-60, the Rules of Council Proceedings, contains no rule that refers to
executive sessions and no provision on remote, telephonic or video participation. No
published City rule, policy or procedure on executive-session attendance records, public
observation of executive sessions or remote participation in executive sessions was located
in § 2-60 or on the City’s Executive Session Agendas webpage.
: hoenix C rity Code C § 2-60 (codifi 2, 2026). City of Pho enix, City Council
ve Se a SIOT Agendas webpage, vi view
12. The Phoenix City Charter provides: “Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its
Members shall deal with the administrative service solely through the City Manager and
neither the Council nor any Member thereof shail give orders to any subordinates of the City
er either publicly or praia
Source ¥
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-06 - Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT - goodgoat net Page 6 of 9

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 five
questions and to place the complete response in this petition’s public legislative file. The
questions ask:
* who may attend a City Council executive session, and how necessity is decided and
recorded;
* what records show attendance and timing, and which details are public:
* what the public can observe without hearing confidential discussion.
* what rules govern remote participation.
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.
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-06 - Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT - goodgoat.net Page 7 of 9

PROPOSED MEASURE
Executive-Session Attendance, Observation, and Remote Participation (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-20261021-06
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. Describe who may attend a Phoenix City Council executive session. Explain who decides whether
a nonmember’s presence is reasonably necessary, the standard applied, when the decision is made,
and what record, if any, documents the decision. Describe whether the record identifies the
attendee, capacity, approving official, and a generic non-substantive basis for necessity. State
expressly if no such record exists.
Question 1 does not request the confidential subject matter or substance of legal advice.
2. Describe the records, if any, that identify every person who attends any portion of a City Council
executive session. Address each person’s name, title or capacity, whether attendance was in person
or remote, and the portion of the session attended. For each field, state whether Phoenix considers it
public or confidential and identify the supporting authority. State expressly if no such record exists.
Question 2 does not request confidential subject matter or legal advice.
3. Describe the records, if any, that show when an executive session actually begins and ends and
when each attendee enters, joins remotely, leaves, disconnects, reconnects, or otherwise
participates. Identify who creates and retains each record, which information Phoenix considers
public, and the authority governing any nondisclosure. State expressly if no such record exists.
4. Describe what a member of the public can observe about executive-session attendance without
hearing or observing the confidential discussion. Address when the Council enters and leaves, who
enters and exits the executive-session location, and who participates remotely. If any observation is
not permitted or possible, describe the physical, technical, legal, privacy, or security reason and
identify the nonconfidential information available instead.
5. Describe the current policy-level rules and instructions governing remote participation in a City
Council executive session. Address identity verification, participant location, physical privacy,
unauthorized persons, headphones, recording devices, screen visibility, platform access,
authentication, connection logs, disconnections, incident reporting, and preservation of technical
records. State expressly when no requirement exists for a listed subject.
The response to Question 5 should not disclose credentials, configuration details, vulnerability
information, or instructions that would compromise security.

PROPOSED we yy © Es MEASUR 3 a S 33 a
SECTION 3. Written-Answer Standards
1. Reproduce each numbered question and labeled subpart unchanged immediately before its separate
answer.
2. 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.
3. When a question asks for a yes-or-no answer, begin with “yes,” “no,” or “the City cannot
determine,” before providing any explanation.
4. 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.
ul Distinguish an existing fact, current practice, written policy, legal position, and proposed future
action. Do not present one as another.
6. 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.
7. 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-20261021-06:
1. The complete written answers;
2. Aresponse index matching every numbered question and every labeled subpart to its separate
answer or expressly stated inability to answer; and
3. 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.
Citizen Petition JV-20261021-06 - Presented by Jerry Van Gasse for GOODIGOAT - goodgoat.net Page 9 of 9