You've been spotted: River Days
Kings Marching Invitational
Cross country invitational
Home > Blogs > Middletown News and Issues > Archives > 2008 > June > 09 > Entry
Executive session do-over
Last Tuesday, Middletown City Council voted to go into executive session to discuss contract negotiations.
However, Law Director Les Landen also had intended to have council include a discussion on pending litigation but did not advise Mayor Lawrence P. Mulligan Jr. to include that in the motion to go into executive session before the public meeting ended on-camera.
After the public meeting ended and Landen’s request for a second discussion became known, Mulligan reopened the public session only to amend the motion to enter executive session and re-vote.
Council then went into executive session to discuss both topics.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Middletown
Comments
By Mike_Presta
June 10, 2008 6:02 AM | Link to this
Hmm…Les Landen wanted this? Was our esteemed Law Director even in attendance? If so, why wasn’t he attending to his duties DURING the meeting? The very competent Ms. Mills stood in his stead all during the June 3 meeting. Could it be that council had to call in Mr. Landen to find a way to do something that Ms. Mills rightly would have no part of?By roadrage
June 10, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
Ed, Ed, Ed. What is the point of this meanlingless blog. In summary, LL had the mayor make a motion to discuss pending litigation out of the public view. Who seconded this terribly important motion, Anthony Marconi? $4./gal gas, and a blog on a motion to adjourn behind closed doors. Go figure.By Mike_Presta
June 11, 2008 5:49 AM | Link to this
Ed and Roadrage: I guess I must have watched the wrong June 3, 2008 meeting (TWICE!) because I didn’t see or hear Mr. Landen anywhere. Nor did I see or hear Mayor Lawrence P. Mulligan, Jr., amend ANY motion nor mention any “pending legislation.” I have again reviewed the recording and the last thing shown is Mr. Lawrence P. Mulligan, Jr., stating that after the executive session to discuss labor contracts, they would “reconvene ONLY TO ADJOURN.” Perhaps this is another occassion of a “missing” portion of a tape, similar to when Mr. “D” was taped demanding his $6 Grand “fee” back from certain city officials?By Mike_Presta
June 11, 2008 5:54 AM | Link to this
Excuse me! I erred in the previous post! Where I typed “pending legislation”, I should have typed: “pending litigation”!