Does The Midwest – Including Yankton – Have An ‘Amazing Appetite For Immersive Ugliness?’

Architecture can be inspiration.


This is a view of downtown Yankton circa 1903.

If you’ve traveled to the great cities of Europe or the National Mall in Washington, D.C., for example, I’m sure you’ve experienced the power architecture can have on the human mind.

Now, think about the architecture of Yankton.

What architecture in our small rural city inspires you?

If you have any answer at all, I’m going to guess you said one of five places — downtown Yankton, the Meridian Bridge, the Yankton Federal Prison Camp (which, of course, was formerly Yankton College), the Mead Building and the Bishop Marty Chapel.

What do all of these places have in common? They were built well before World War II and the Modern architectural styles that became popular in the post-war period, when the focus turned to new building materials, mass production and rapid construction.

The problem with much of the architecture built in the last 70 years — at least in the Midwest — is that it is geared toward automobiles and doesn’t inspire much awe among its inhabitants. It is mostly bland, insular and does not create a sense of place. More importantly, it does not create a sense of community.

With all of that said, it’s probably easy to understand why my mind became electric while hearing the following discussion take place between author, social critic, public speaker and blogger James Howard Kunstler and Chuck Marohn, the founder and president of Strong Towns. This is not a complete transcription of the podcast but instead one that captures the points I found relevant.

James Howard Kunstler (JHK): I’m always amazed at the stupefying ugliness of Midwestern towns — especially as they have evolved after the second World War. You see remnants of some pretty good stuff at the old town centers. But, most of the time, it has been obliterated. It’s as though some of the worst tendencies of American culture are amplified in the Midwest — all the bad choices, all the short cuts, all the fakery. Especially the total absence of artistry in our surroundings. How do you account for that in the Midwest?

Chuck Marohn (CM): … I think the stunning thing about it is, we’re actually proud of it. … These are very good people, and they care about their places, but it’s a little bit bewildering.

JHK: It’s mystifying. Because I agree with you — I think, in many ways, they are good people. But they have this amazing appetite for that immersive ugliness that I tend to describe as entropy made visible.

CM: … We need people who travel more … Part of it is, you see the world around you. You compare — they’ve got a nicer Olive Garden than we do. Let’s put brick siding on the next one … You get that kind of introspection here.

JHK: That’s some pretty shallow introspection.

(James relates that the latest example of this Midwestern architectural malaise he witnessed was in Sioux Falls.)

JHK: It had about 1 1/2 blocks of old urban fabric surrounded by this gigantic supernova of crap. That’s normal.

(James goes on to say that, when he goes to Midwestern towns, he often searches for postcards with some sign of urban memory of what the town was originally. He notes that many communities were new after 1865 — Yankton was incorporated in 1861.)

JHK: You look at a historic photo of Sioux Falls in 1880, and you realize all of that stuff is less than 25 years old. Now it’s all gone, of course. Is there any cultural memory … of what was good?

Listen to the whole podcast here. Learn more about Strong Towns here.

Kunstler puts into words what I’ve felt about Sioux Falls and its charmless urban sprawl for a long time. (And considering all the advice Sioux Falls Mayor Mike Huether has had for Yankton of late — advice, for the record, with which I generally agree — I had to laugh at Kunstler pointing out that his adopted community also has plenty of work to do.)

I think we do have that cultural memory, though it grows more faint with every passing year. Unfortunately, we live in a state/region that does not put a lot of emphasis on preservation, so many of us have given up hope that these buildings can be preserved except in rare circumstances.

(Remember all the buildings of historical significance the State of South Dakota destroyed on the South Dakota Human Services Center campus in the last couple years? To say the efforts to find uses for those buildings were half hearted is being generous, and it is only through the heroic efforts of the Mead Building Committee, the Yankton County Historical Society and the friends of those entities that the Mead Building still has a shot at a future as a cultural center and museum. The Yankton County taxpayers gave the project a huge boost in 2014 with approval of a levy that will raise money for the Mead restoration and other historical projects in the county.)

As Onward Yankton, the City of Yankton and Yankton residents plan for the downtown and community-wide development, I think it is important for us to keep in mind this “cultural memory of what was good” and fight to preserve and recreate it whenever possible.

Yankton has the benefit of natural beauty — the Missouri River and the rolling hills that surround it — which many of our peers do not.

Let’s build on that and the historic architectural foundation that remains and not give in to the ease of the “immersive ugliness” that already occupies too much of our surroundings.

What community landscape will inspire us, will encourage us to walk and to congregate, and will help ourselves and visitors see that, while we don’t have a California climate, we have the warmth and richness of community that weather cannot rival?

Why I Voted For The North Douglas Avenue Improvement Project

The Yankton City Commission voted to commence with an improvement project on the north end of Douglas Avenue this week.

It’s a decision that has been five or more years in the making.

Here is what the project entails (and more details can be found in this Press & Dakotan article):

Yankton City Manager Amy Nelson said the project is $1.6 million, with $100,800 to be assessed. The project will include rebuilding Douglas Ave. between Anna St. and 31st St. and adding curb, gutter and sidewalks along the stretch of roadway. Currently, the road beyond Anna St. has no sidewalk or shoulder.

Commissioner Charlie Gross opposed the resolution because he believes it sets a bad precedence. I respect his decision, as it is an element of the debate that I struggled with, too.

Ultimately, I came to support the project for the following reasons.

I’m the first to admit that this is not an ideal solution.

It does not adhere to our subdivision ordinance, and some will question the fairness of making an exception.

Instead of a clear black or white — or good or bad — decision, the commission is left with a deafening gray of competing considerations, values and goals. It is in this gray area that I have struggled to find clarity for the last several months, knowing that the time for a decision would arrive.

Questions that come to mind are:

1) Should an exception to our subdivision ordinance be made for these property owners? Are we creating a precedence that we may regret in the long term?

2) If the matter went to court, does the city have the weight of the law on its side?

3) With the development already in place along North Douglas, can we wait — possibly decades — for current or new property owners to change their minds on the matter and put off the installation of curb and gutter, storm sewer and sidewalk improvements?

4) As more development happens to the north, and pedestrian traffic increases, are we putting people at serious risk of injury or death by not having a sidewalk in place along that stretch?

5) Currently, a developer has indicated that it will not build homes on property it owns along North Douglas unless the city carries most of the financial burden of this infrastructure project. With the need for housing in the community now and in the future, is it worth more to Yankton to make this sacrifice in order to gain more homes? Thus, we create new opportunities for those wishing to live in our community while increasing our property tax revenues and, potentially, sales taxes revenues.

These questions and more have swirled around my head and led to many conversations with those who are for moving ahead with this proposal and those who are against it.

But now, as the question is asked, I must come to a decision.

And my decision is yes.

Yes, we need to set aside history and our normal requirements to address this specific circumstance.

Yes, we need to think about the long-term future of our city. Douglas Avenue has been, and will continue to be, a major north-south thoroughfare for our residents. We need the proper infrastructure in place — especially sidewalks — in order to ensure orderly development and improve safety.

Yes, we need to encourage the development of more housing that will contribute to the growth and prosperity of our community.

So while this resolution is not ideal, it is at the very least a compromise by which both the city and the property owners along North Douglas can live.

In the short term, the City Commission and our staff will, perhaps rightly, be questioned about the fairness of this agreement in comparison to what we ask of others in regards to our subdivision ordinance.

But I’m confident that, in the long term, history will judge the agreement favorably as one that made the best of a frustrating situation and did the greatest good for the community.

It’s Showtime! (A 2015 Summer Concert Recap)

People often ask me, “What have you been up to this summer?”

Often times, I don’t remember what I’ve been up to this summer.

It’s such a blur.

But here is a reminder.

I’ve seen a lot of good concerts during the last several months.

Here is a recap of some of what I’ve attended:

Soft Moon:


Jenny Lewis:

Version 2IMG_1120

The Decemberists:


The Ghost Wolves:


Jason Isbell:


Mac Demarco:






Future Islands:


Courtney Barnett:


Sarah Bethe Nelson:


The Good Life:


The Music Of My Life (Summer Of 2015 AD)

This is a painting by Craig LaRotonda. To find out more about his amazing work, visit

This is a painting by Craig LaRotonda. To find out more about his amazing work, visit

Greetings seekers of the eternal light.

Summer’s twilight is beginning to press hard on our chests, and so begin the chills through our bodies and the slow descent into winter’s darkness.

It is the most magical time of year, as celebrations of harvest and the transience of life cast a strange spell over the landscape.

But before we pass over into our autumnal existence, let us look back and the music that sustained us through the summer.

I offer you two hours worth of songs, some old but mostly new, that enlivened my heart and mind during these past several months. I invite you to feast upon them with me.

(This is all a very fancy way of saying: I’ve made a Summer 2015 Playlist, and I’m excited to share it with you!)

Think The Meridian Bridge Plaza Was Inevitable? Think Again.

Photo of the Meridian Bridge Plaza courtesy of the City of Yankton Parks and Recreation Department.

Photo of the Meridian Bridge Plaza courtesy of the City of Yankton Parks and Recreation Department.

The Meridian Bridge Plaza has become a beautiful, fun attraction for Yankton.
Throughout the day, I see children enjoying the splash pad. My Facebook feed is filled with pictures posted by parents of their kids playing in the water. I’ve been there at 10 p.m., and it is filled with children and parents.
Soon, I believe, the plaza will be treated with the same reverence and pride Yankton residents and visitors accord to the Meridian Bridge.
And in doing so, it will be tempting to believe that the plaza we have today (and which will continue to evolve) was inevitable.
But that would be a mistake.
If there is a lesson to be learned from the project, it is this: If you think Yankton not only deserves but NEEDS more amenities like the Meridian Bridge Plaza, your energy and voice is needed.
The plaza is the result of years of planning and debate. Parties involved included City of Yankton staff, the Yankton City Commission, Keep Yankton Beautiful, The Meridian Plaza Master Planning Committee, RDG Planning and Design and probably some others that I’ve overlooked.
Various proposals were reviewed and amended before the plaza became a reality.
I admit, I was frustrated as a journalist and Yankton citizen with how long the process took to unfold, because even though there were good plans — and funds — it still took many years to accept that the Meridian Bridge was a draw for people and that the plaza was a needed amenity.
Planning for the plaza began in 2006 with RDG Planning and Design, and those concepts were presented for public comment. In fundamental ways, the ideas presented in “Two Bridges to the Future” are representative of the plaza we have today.
In addition, much of the money used to pay for the plaza was earmarked and set aside by the city before the Meridian Bridge conversion was even complete. Although the money was slated generally for “downtown improvements,” the intent from the beginning was that it would be used for the bridge plaza area.
MeridianBridgePlazaThe Meridian Bridge opened to pedestrian and bicycle traffic in November 2011. A decision was then made by the City Commission in 2012 to build a sidewalk but little else in the plaza area before entertaining further development. The simple trail feature was considered a “canvas” upon which future plans could be added.
At a January 2014 meeting, the commission discussed the Meridian Plaza Master Planning Committee proposal and decided it needed to be pared down before construction due to the estimated costs.
Despite the delay, Commissioner Craig Sommer, who also served on the committee, was adamant that work proceed on the plaza.
“The money was put away years ago to make sure we had it when we got to this point,” he said. “They whole point of that plaza was to become a tourist attraction — a place people would come to in Yankton to go sit at, see it and walk it. I’d hate to see another year go by where we fiddle with numbers, look at plans and get no bids let and no work done. Every year we wait, we’re losing more of this project to the cost of building materials going up.”
It was August 2014 before the City Commission approved a $523,800 contract to build the plaza we have today.
The discussion at the meeting included the following exchange according to the Press & Dakotan:

But there was some hesitation on the part of some commissioners (to approve the contract).
Commissioner Pauline Akland said she was unsure of a water spraying feature that was planned to be included, citing a picture she’d seen of a similar feature at Wall Drug.
“Everybody was walking around (the water jets) because nobody wanted to get wet,” Akland said. “It’s no secret that I have not been in favor of the spray jets or the fountain down in front of the bridge. I’ve accepted the fact that we’re moving ahead with the fountain, but I still feel the spray jets and the water feature there is not the place to spend the money. I’ve always felt that should be done at the pool. (The plaza is) just not the place for it to be.
Additionally, she argued that businesses may have objections to the feature as well.
“You expect this to bring a lot of people into the community and spend time down there, and then you expect them to go downtown and spend their money,” she said. “What business owner is going to want wet children in their business place or a restaurant, or wherever?”

Well, fortunately, the plaza has been getting plenty of use as kids go out of their way to walk through the water jets — again and again.

Photo of the Meridian Bridge Plaza courtesy of the City of Yankton Parks and Recreation Department.

Photo of the Meridian Bridge Plaza courtesy of the City of Yankton Parks and Recreation Department.

The sound of those kids playing echoes around the downtown and provides a sign of youthful life that is too often lacking in the area.
The Meridian Bridge is in every sense Yankton’s connection between its history and the future. It is a monument to the industriousness of our ancestors and a call to action for our generation to aspire to something great.
If you think that is going to happen through magical thinking and the inevitability of progress, let the example of the Meridian Bridge Plaza cure you of that belief.
Go to the plaza, listen to the joy it inspires in our young residents and resolve to make your voice heard on these quality of life issues — again and again. We don’t have another 10 years to patiently await for the next step of downtown and riverfront development (Note: I’m happy to report the next phase of the Meridian Plaza construction is already under way!).
I don’t want to be a community where people ask, “Why don’t we have that?” I want to be a community where people ask, “How in the world did we get that?”
Interesting and inspiring public places such as the plaza that bring a wide variety of people together cultivate a community’s soul and give individuals pride and ownership in the place they live. We need more of that to strengthen the character of our community, and we need it sooner rather than later.

(This blog reflects my individual views and not those of the Yankton City Commission or the City of Yankton.)

“40 Days and I Miss You …”

If you’ve heard me talk about music, you’ve probably heard me talk about Slowdive.

Ethereal. Epic. Fragile. Melancholy.

These are some of the words I’d associate with the music of Slowdive.

I was lucky enough to see them in concert twice last year — and both experiences were quite overwhelming and emotional. I never thought I’d get the chance to see them live, and there they were … with their guitars acting like jet engines lifting my mind to the heavens.

Pitchfork released this documentary about “Souvlaki,” the band’s most beloved album, this week. Get to know Slowdive.

If you like what you see and hear, check out my more in-depth post about Slowdive’s past and reunion in this post.

The Debate For A More Transparent Yankton City Government Begins TOMORROW

SunThe Yankton City Commission will take up a discussion tomorrow (Monday) to make our municipal government more transparent.

If you have strong feelings on the matter — one way or another — I encourage you to attend and share them.

The meetings gets under way at 7 p.m. at the Technical Education Center.

Below you can peruse the memorandum I shared with my fellow commissioners (and can be found in the commission packet made available to the public).

Dear City Commissioners,

Government transparency is an issue that I believe helps ensure trust between governing entities and the public.

I know from experience that the City of Yankton takes open government efforts seriously and does a good job of keeping the public informed.

However, there are ways we can strengthen our transparency efforts and, I believe, build more trust with the public.

Of special interest to me is the subject of executive sessions. During 2014, the Yankton City Commission spent just more than 30 hours in regular session — and just more than 22 hours in executive session.

In other words, we spend a lot of time in closed meetings. This can create perceptions among our constituents that we are being secretive or have something to hide.

I want to create more accountability for the time we spend in executive sessions. This is not to suggest we have been/are doing anything wrong. It is simply an effort to improve transparency.

One way I believe we can do this is by recording executive sessions and, in some cases, possibly releasing those recordings to the public at an appropriate point in time.

What follows is research I have compiled regarding open meetings laws in other states/cities.

Some key questions I think we need to address if we proceed with recording executive sessions are:

1) Should we also take some form of minutes?

2) What is the purpose we wish to accomplish by recording executive sessions?

a. For example, in Colorado it is ”solely to permit policing of the requirements that discussion in an executive session focus solely on the matters(s) for which the session is called and that the session be used for deliberation only, rather than for decision making.”

b. Other states record the sessions with the intent of eventually releasing at least some of them to the public.

3) Who will have access to these recordings?

a. Presumably, we would want a judge to be able to review the tapes in order to settle a legal dispute.

b. Can a commissioner, who was or was not present for the closed session, request a copy of the recording?

4) How long will the recordings be retained?

5) Are there instances in which the recordings will be made public?

a. For example, in Anchorage, Alaska, “if the session concerns labor negotiations, the release date shall be six months following expiration of the labor contract.”

b. In Iowa, if a session is closed to discuss the purchase or sale of particular real estate, the records of that closed meeting must be made available for public examination when the transaction is completed or canceled.

According to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, here are the states that require recordings of executive sessions: Colorado, Nevada, Iowa and North Dakota.

Either a recording or minutes are required in Oregon and Texas.

Recordings are not required but are permitted in California, Kentucky, Maryland and Ohio.

Some states require a recording only under particular circumstances. In Minnesota, an executive session for labor negotiations must be recorded. In Utah, a closed session must be recorded if it is convened for reasons not laid out in Utah law.

Below, I’ve collected information about open meetings laws in places where a recording is required to help us understand how this is employed by those entities.


Nathan Johnson

Yankton City Commission


I’ve included Alaska, because its state law does not require the recording of executive sessions. However, the City of Anchorage has established in its own ordinances that the meetings are to be recorded.

Here is information about the Alaska state law:

4. Recording and minutes There is no statutory requirement to take minutes or make a recording of the discussions in executive session. However, at least one superior court judge has observed that one reason why he was unable to determine whether an executive session in question was legal was that no recording had been made of the session. Some public bodies do record executive sessions (the tapes are not released to the public) while others do not. Municipal attorneys and public officials in this state disagree about whether an executive session should be recorded. Until the law is clarified by the legislature or the Supreme Court, it seems likely there will continue to be inconsistency in the practices of various public entities on this issue.

Here is the law in Anchorage:,%22pageNum%22:1,%22resultsPerPage%22:25,%22booleanSearch%22:false,%22stemming%22:true,%22fuzzy%22:false,%22synonym%22:false,%22contentTypes%22:%5B%22CODES%22%5D,%22productIds%22:%5B%5D&nodeId=TIT2LEBR_CH2.30RUPRAS_2.30.030ME

Executive sessions.

1. The assembly may recess to meet in executive session to discuss the following subjects if the express nature of the subject is stated in the motion calling for the session: a. Pending litigation; b. Labor negotiations with municipal employees; c. Matters that, if immediately disclosed, would clearly affect adversely the finances of the municipality; or d. Matters which tend to defame or injure the reputation of persons.

2. No official action may be taken in executive sessions. Although the public may be excluded, the session shall be electronically recorded. The tapes shall be available for public access according to the following schedule: a. If the session concerns pending litigation, the release date shall be when all causes of action have been resolved by final judgment or when further claims arising from the matter are otherwise barred; b. If the session concerns labor negotiations, the release date shall be six months following expiration of the labor contract; c. If the session concerns matters that, if immediately disclosed, would adversely affect the finances of the municipality, the release date shall be a date certain set by the assembly at the conclusion of the executive session; and d. If the session concerns matters which tend to defame or injure the reputation of persons the assembly may set a release date or may provide that no release shall occur.

3. The assembly may extend the time periods set forth in subsection 2. of this subsection only for good cause shown.

4. Notwithstanding any provisions of chapter 3.90 to the contrary, tapes or minutes of an executive session shall be available only to assembly members or authorized municipal staff until the date of release, if any, as authorized under the provisions set forth in this subsection.


2014 Minnesota Statutes

13D.03 CLOSED MEETINGS FOR LABOR NEGOTIATIONS STRATEGY. Subdivision 1.Procedure. (a) Section 13D.01, subdivisions 1, 2, 4, 5, and section 13D.02 do not apply to a meeting held pursuant to the procedure in this section. (b) The governing body of a public employer may by a majority vote in a public meeting decide to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals, conducted pursuant to sections 179A.01 to 179A.25. (c) The time of commencement and place of the closed meeting shall be announced at the public meeting. (d) A written roll of members and all other persons present at the closed meeting shall be made available to the public after the closed meeting.

Subd. 2. Meeting must be recorded. (a) The proceedings of a closed meeting to discuss negotiation strategies shall be tape-recorded at the expense of the governing body. (b) The recording shall be preserved for two years after the contract is signed and shall be made available to the public after all labor contracts are signed by the governing body for the current budget period.

Subd. 3.If violation claimed. (a) If an action is brought claiming that public business other than discussions of labor negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals was transacted at a closed meeting held pursuant to this section during the time when the tape is not available to the public, the court shall review the recording of the meeting in camera. (b) If the court finds that this section was not violated, the action shall be dismissed and the recording shall be sealed and preserved in the records of the court until otherwise made available to the public pursuant to this section. (c) If the court finds that this section was violated, the recording may be introduced at trial in its entirety subject to any protective orders as requested by either party and deemed appropriate by the court.


Can an open meeting be closed?

Before a governing body can close a portion of its meeting, it first must convene in a properly noticed open meeting. Next, it has to announce the legal authority to close the meeting and the topics to be considered during the closed portion of the meeting.

After that, unless the law requires a closed meeting, the governing body must vote on whether to close the meeting. Any executive session must be tape recorded. All substantive votes must be re- corded by roll call.

How Do I Conduct an Executive Session?

Only the portions of a public meeting that are specifically confidential or exempt from the open meetings law, or during which confidential or exempt records are discussed, may be closed to the public and held in executive session. The remainder of the meeting must be open to the public. Although certain statutes may apply to particular meetings or entities, state law specifies the following general procedure for holding an executive session.

1. Convene in an open session preceded by public notice;

2. Pass a motion to hold an executive session, unless a motion is unnecessary because a confidential meeting is required;

3. Announce during the open portion of the meeting the topics to be considered during the executive session and the legal authority for holding an executive session on those topics;

4. Record the executive session electronically or on audio or video tape;

5. Limit the topics considered during the executive session to the announced, authorized topics; and

6. Take final action on the topics considered in the executive session during the open portion of a meeting. Under these provisions, a governing body’s authority to hold an executive session may be invoked only during a properly noticed open meeting, and not during a separate meeting for which public notice is not provided. To close a portion of the meeting, the governing body may either excuse the public or reconvene in another location. Under N.D.C.C. §44-04-19.2(2), a vote to go into executive session is not necessary if a confidential meeting is required or if the governing body is closing the meeting to discuss confidential records. However, because a discussion of exempt records does not necessarily have to occur in an executive session, a vote is necessary to determine whether the discussion will occur in an open meeting or in an executive session. The recording of an executive session may be disclosed upon a majority vote of the governing body, unless the executive session was required to be confidential. The recording must be disclosed pursuant to court order or to the Attorney General for the purpose of administrative review. The Attorney General must return the recording to the governing body upon completion of the administrative review without disclosing the recording to the public. Unauthorized disclosure of the recording by a public servant is a violation of N.D.C.C. §12.1-13-01. The recording and any minutes of an executive session remain closed even if the underlying statutory basis for the executive session no longer applies. The recording must be maintained by the public entity for a minimum of six months after the executive session. Although all executive sessions must be recorded, minutes of executive sessions need not be kept. The minutes of an open meeting during which an executive session is held must indicate the names of the members attending the executive session, the date and time the executive session was called to order and adjourned, a summary of the general topics that were discussed or considered that does not disclose any closed or confidential information, and the legal authority for holding the executive session. N.D.C.C. §44-04-19.2(4).


Minutes and recordings under the OML?

The OML requires that written minutes be kept of each meeting of the public body, for both closed and open sessions. Written minutes must include the date, time, and place of the meeting, the members of the public body who were present, the substance of all matters proposed, discussed or decided, the substance of oral or written remarks made by a member of the public if he so requests, and any other information which a member of the public body requests to be included. Written minutes, and any audio or tape recordings of an open meeting must be available for public inspection within 30 working days after adjournment of the meeting. Minutes of public meetings must be retained by the public body for at least five years. Upon request, minutes of closed sessions must be provided to the person to which the closed session pertained within 30 working days of adjournment of the meeting. Minutes of closed sessions are generally not public records.

Minutes of meetings closed pursuant to NRS 241.030 become public records whenever the public body determines that the matters discussed no longer require confidentiality and the person whose character, conduct, competence, or health was discussed has consented to their disclosure. NRS 241.035(2)(a)-(c). Under NRS 241.033(6) the subject person is always entitled to a copy of the minutes of the closed session upon request, whether or not they ever become public records. In Davis v. Churchill County Sch. Bd. of Trustees, 616 F. Supp. 1310, 1314 (D. Nev. 1985), the court suggested that a student who was the subject of closed hearings may release “any information he or she chooses,” which presumably includes minutes or tapes of closed sessions. …. Recordings of closed sessions made by public bodies must also be retained for at least one year but are given the same protection from public disclosure as minutes of closed sessions set out in NRS 241.035(2). The tapes must be made available to the subject of the closed session, and under NRS 241.035(5), must also be made available to the Office of the Attorney General upon request.


Executive session: Requires announcement of topic for discussion, citation to authorizing law, and a two-thirds vote of the members present. Discussions held in an executive session must be electronically recorded. No record or electronic recording is required to be kept of the portion of a discussion in executive session that constitutes a privileged attorney-client communication.

The Executive Session Record The Open Meetings Law requires that executive sessions be electronically recorded. The executive session record must be retained for at least ninety days following the date of the executive session. The record may then be disposed of, as other government records, consistent with the local government’s records retention policy. The requirement that a record be made of the executive session is solely to permit policing of the requirements that discussion in an executive session focus solely on the matters(s) for which the session is called and that the session be used for deliberation only, rather than for decision making. Thus, the Open Meetings Law provides that the executive session record is not a public record and may only be reviewed by a judge, following certain preliminary showings, to determine if the body stayed substantially “on topic” and did not engage in unlawful decision making.


Iowa Open Meetings Law

4. A governmental body shall keep detailed minutes of all discussion, persons present, and action occurring at a closed session, and shall also audio record all of the closed session. The detailed minutes and audio recording of a closed session shall be sealed and shall not be public records open to public inspection. However, upon order of the court in an action to enforce this chapter, the detailed minutes and audio recording shall be unsealed and examined by the court in camera. The court shall then determine what part, if any, of the minutes should be disclosed to the party seeking enforcement of this chapter for use in that enforcement proceeding. In determining whether any portion of the minutes or recording shall be disclosed to such a party for this purpose, the court shall weigh the prejudicial effects to the public interest of the disclosure of any portion of the minutes or recording in question, against its probative value as evidence in an enforcement proceeding. After such a determination, the court may permit inspection and use of all or portions of the detailed minutes and audio recording by the party seeking enforcement of this chapter. A governmental body shall keep the detailed minutes and audio recording of any closed session for a period of at least one year from the date of that meeting, except as otherwise required by law.

“j. To discuss the purchase or sale of particular real estate only where premature disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price the governmental body would have to pay for that property or reduce the price the governmental body would receive for that property. The minutes and the audio recording of a session closed under this paragraph shall be available for public examination when the transaction discussed is completed.” A meeting may be closed under exemption (j) only when public discussion of the possible purchase or sale of particular real estate could be reasonably expected to increase the price demanded of that property or decrease the amount the government would receive in a sale. The economic public interest that this exemption is intended to serve is clear. The exemption does not allow closed sessions for discussion of real estate in general. If a session is closed under this exemption, the records of that closed meeting must be made available for public examination when the transaction is completed or canceled. Under Chapter 21.5(4) the minutes and tape recording of any closed session must be kept at least one year. If more than a year should elapse between a meeting closed under Chapter 21.5(1)(j) and the completion of the real-estate transaction, the record of that closed session should be kept for a reasonable time after the completion of the transaction so it can be available for public examination.