<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Open Meetings Act 11</title>
		<description>Discuss Open Meetings Act 11</description>
		<link>http://www.theaustinbulldog.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=119:open-meetings-act-11&amp;catid=3:main-articles</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 21:53:58 --500</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.theaustinbulldog.org/index.php?option=com_jcomments&amp;task=rss&amp;object_id=119&amp;object_group=com_content&amp;limit=10&amp;format=raw" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Ken Martin says:</title>
			<link>http://www.theaustinbulldog.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=119:open-meetings-act-11&amp;catid=3:main-articles#comment-124</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks for your questions. I'll address each: 1. Why aren't city council members paying for their own attorneys in relation to the open meetings investigation? A: At this point, the three outside attorneys are representing the city council as a whole, and the city council is entitled to have that representation at taxpayers expense to advise the governing body. 2. Why do taxpayers have to pay for special counsel — not to mention three different attorneys? A: As the city council is entitled to representation for advice at this point, naturally they want to get folks who are among the best local attorneys in the business. 3. Have any hired their own attorneys? A: Not to my knowledge. However, as I understand it, if the county attorney's inquiry should result in criminal charges under Section 551.143 of the Open Meetings Act, then the elected officials will be responsible to pay for their own defense and it is not appropriate for taxpayers to foot the bill.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Ken Martin</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 22:28:39 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.theaustinbulldog.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=119:open-meetings-act-11&amp;catid=3:main-articles#comment-124</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jason Meeker says:</title>
			<link>http://www.theaustinbulldog.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=119:open-meetings-act-11&amp;catid=3:main-articles#comment-123</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Why aren't city council members paying for their own attorneys in relation to the open meetings investigation? Why do taxpayers have to pay for special counsel -- not to mention three different attorneys? Have any hired their own attorneys?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jason Meeker</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:10:25 --500</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.theaustinbulldog.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=119:open-meetings-act-11&amp;catid=3:main-articles#comment-123</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
