Thread by @AK_cases_bot

Happening now: Oral Argument in Alaskans for Open Meetings v. Municipality of Anchorage

Recap: AFOM filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction to stay enforcement of ordinances passed by the Assembly in August based on violations of the Open Meetings Act and 1st Amendment #aklaw

https://twitter.com/AK_cases_bot/status/1334699542378246144

Michael Corey for AFOM
Ruth Botstein for the Muni

Judge Gandbhir: There'll be no ruling today.

Corey starts out by making arguments to the public, not the court. This is blatantly political: "The Assembly took it upon themselves not to follow Alaska Statutes."

"Everyone of us has the obligation to follow the law." Lol. CC: Mayor candidate Bronson.

Mario Bird is attending this hearing remotely from his home in a 16th Century monastery

@mattbuxton has a good running thread going:

https://twitter.com/mattbuxton/status/1334932934604718080?s=20

Corey: When was the last time there was a criminal trial? [Answer: last month]... E-court proceedings are not enough.

[Uhh... We are having a remote hearing right now....]

Corey, pontificating about the philosophical consequences of Covid and making wild accusations and conclusions, is in the process of confirming that Anchorage voters made the right decision when they removed him from the bench...

Corey: "e-person" presence is not sufficient. [Cool.]

Corey: Intellectual curiosity would indicate that if the Assembly violated the law for this, they violated it for other things.

[Former superior court judge, ladies and gentlemen]

Corey: Wants a PI, then status conference to set an evidentiary hearing (mini-trial).

[Unclear what factual issues require a "mini-trial."]

Botstein is up for the Muni: Open Meetings Act only requires opportunity for public participation.

[She carefully avoids addressing how some Muni employees got to attend in-person, look for the Court to ask her about that later]

Botstein: Plain language of the Open Meetings Act, which allows remote participation. [She's getting very animated]

Botstein: Reply brief has a new argument about "invited" speakers in Assembly meetings... [proceeds to give an Anchorage version of school house rock "how an idea becomes an ordinance..."]

Botstein: "Debate and discussion" stage of considering an ordinance... the Assembly invites speakers to talk about the wisdom of the legislation... often Muni employee is the witness... So that's what happened here...

Boststein: But because this was at non-public stage, it didn't take away from the public's right to participate.

[Ok, this is a bullshit legal argument, because the Open Meetings Act ISN'T limited to the public participation stage. The Muni SHOULD lose this point]

Corey: If the Assembly meets in person, the public has to be allowed to participate in person.

Bird: Governmental body locking doors, different than Southeast Conference v. Hickel, telecommunications centers not required but "open meetings" are required.

Judge Gandbhir: If the Assembly decides to be entirely remote is that sufficient?

[key question!]

Bird: Yes. But if in-person, must be in-person for public too.

[good answer]

The Muni is arguing that there's no problem b/c the public was allowed to participate. But that completely ignores the larger point of the Open Meetings Act, which is that the there's more to gov meetings than just testifying!

The Muni is now arguing that this is all AFOM's fault, if they had filed suit earlier, it wouldn't be such a big problem for the Assembly to cure the violations...

Hearing Botstein make that argument makes me sad.

Botstein: "This is not the injunction that plaintiffs brief."