Closing The Loop: Bohen Absolved of Alleged Open Meeting Law Violation That Wasn't

Closing the loop
We will revisit some unresolved issues from time to time—to update you, to "close the loop." Too often, the resolution of an issue does not get reported. Instead, all that is remembered is the accusation, even when it was proven false. Here's an example.

Open Meeting Law complaint against former councilmember Tim Bohen dismissed by State
In 2023, Oro Valley Town Attorney Tobin Sidles filed an Open Meeting Law complaint (OML2023-0020) against former Councilmember Tim Bohen. The complaint alleged that Bohen had improperly disclosed a February 1, 2023, memo written by attorney Jonathan Rothschild. It suggested that Bohen may have shared the memo on social media, potentially violating Open Meeting Law by disclosing privileged information.

Bohen denied the accusation, stating he was not even remotely guilty. Despite this, the complaint was filed and became part of the public record.

The Findings--No basis for complaint
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office reviewed the complaint and determined that no violation had occurred. Key findings include:
- No social media post containing the memo was ever presented as evidence.
- No proof linked Bohen to the alleged disclosure.
- The memo itself did not fall under executive session protections, meaning its release did not violate Open Meeting Law.

In other words, the complaint against Bohen was unfounded and unsubstantiated.

At the time of the complaint, Bohen had voiced concerns about the town’s outside attorney
During his final year on the Council, Bohen raised concerns about the town’s legal representation. The law firm Mesch Clark Rothschild continued to provide services and bill the town even after its contract expired on September 6, 2024. The firm’s contract renewal was not approved until November 6, 2024—minutes after Bohen’s term on the Council had ended. Bohen, who had consistently opposed renewing the firm’s contract, still questions whether the delay was intentional, preventing him from publicly raising concerns before the Council’s decision. 

We've Closed the Loop on This One
Now that the facts are clear, we wanted to ensure this matter is properly addressed. Once an accusation is made, it can remain in the public record—even when the person involved is fully exonerated. In this case, the Arizona Attorney General determined that no violation occurred. That’s why we are closing the loop on this one.
- - -

What happened to transparency in Oro Valley government?

The problem with Executive Sessions
During a Special Session on Wednesday, September 23rd, the Town Council went into Executive Session “regarding Town golf operations at the 9-hole El Conquistador Resort Course [Pusch Ridge Course], including Memorandum of Understanding thereon and lease thereof.”

This MOU has never been discussed in public. It has never been attached to an agenda. In fact, it has only been discussed in Executive Sessions.

Executive session proceedings are private. The participants cannot openly discuss what took place in those sessions. The minutes can only be seen via a subpoena. The Executive Session that took place on September 23rd was a prime example of using the Executive Session to shield information that should be available to the public.

The Council exited the September 23rd Executive Session and moved to continue the effective date of the MOU with HSL from October 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021.

Why was the start date for the HSL Pusch Ridge lease extended?
Oro Valley residents will never know the reasons for this extension. Yes, the COVID crisis has affected all facets of the economy, including the resort/hospitality area. But it has also adversely affected Oro Valley’s sales tax revenues. So why does our Council feel the need to spend an additional 120 days of your taxpayer money to assist HSL? Why do they cut Lopez some slack, but not the citizens?

There is no requirement to hold Executive Sessions
While it’s true that contracts are one of the 7 reasons to hold an Executive Session (see the full list below), there is no requirement to do so and there appears to be more Executive Sessions in recent years than in past years. Our Town Manager seems to relish Executive Sessions as they keep matters from the public and saddle the Town Council with nondisclosure. This practice needs to stop.

The Town Council needs to make public decisions in public.

Arizona Open Meetings Laws allow for 7 reasons to go into Executive Sessions:

1. Discussion or consideration of employment, assignment, appointment, promotion, demotion, dismissal, salaries, disciplining or resignation of a public officer, appointee or employee of any public body.

2. Discussion or consideration of records exempt by law from public inspection.

3. Discussion or consultation for legal advice with the attorney or attorneys of the public body.

4. Discussion or consultation with the attorneys of the public body in order to consider its position and instruct its attorneys regarding the public body's position regarding contracts that are the subject of negotiations, in pending or contemplated litigation or in settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve litigation.

5. Discussions or consultations with designated representatives of the public body in order to consider its position and instruct its representatives regarding negotiations with employee organizations regarding the salaries, salary schedules or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of employees of the public body.

6. Discussion, consultation or consideration for international and interstate negotiations or for negotiations by a city or town, or its designated representatives, with members of a tribal council, or its designated representatives, of an Indian reservation located within or adjacent to the city or town.

7. Discussions or consultations with designated representatives of the public body in order to consider its position and instruct its representatives regarding negotiations for the purchase, sale or lease of real property.

Guest View: Diane Peters ~ Councilmember Solomon violates the rules at the October 2nd and October 16th Town Council Meetings. Part 2.

Part 1 was published yesterday and discussed Solomon’s violation of Attorney-Client privilege. Scroll down beneath this article to read it. Today’s article discusses his violation of Parliamentary Rules and how he appears to see himself not just as a councilmember, but also as the mayor and town attorney all rolled into one.

Councilmember Solomon violates Town Council Parliamentary Rules
First some background on what led to the violation. During the October 16, 2019 Town Council Meeting, a discussion ensued regarding Mayor Winfield’s desire to reassign the Council Liaison positions for the various boards and commissions during that evening’s meeting rather than waiting until the current terms expire on December 31st.

Open Meeting Law
Winfield explained that he did not discuss the new council liaison assignments with each councilmember prior to the meeting because he was concerned about a possible violation of the Open Meeting Law since it was something that they would all be voting on. He consulted with the town attorney who recommended that he communicate the town council liaison appointments through the town manager, so that’s what he did.

Councilmembers Pina, Rodman, and Solomon become confrontational
Despite Mayor Winfield offering valid reasons for amending the liaison assignments and for not discussing the changes with the council beforehand, Councilmembers Pina, Rodman, and Solomon launched into multiple diatribes claiming that Winfield was disrespectful to them in not discussing the changes with them prior to the meeting.

The video of that discussion was posted on LOVE on October 21st. If you haven’t yet seen it, you can watch it HERE

“Town Attorney” Solomon speaks
Councilmember Solomon gave his “legal” opinion that, “if it’s done on an individual basis, it’s not a violation of the Open Meeting Law.” Solomon also insisted that not discussing the new liaison assignments beforehand, “shows a complete lack of cooperation, a complete lack of a desire to have the council work together, an obvious disdain for the other council members, and I could go on and on…” (Yes, we all know that Solomon likes to go on and on and on).

Mayor Winfield defends himself via waiving his attorney-client privilege
Winfield asked the town attorney to tell the council what advice he gave Winfield about discussing the liaison assignments prior to the meeting.

Attorney Cohen: “…As I recall, I received an inquiry from the mayor about, I believe you were in the process of coordination with the Town Manager to make certain assignments to the various boards and commissions amongst the council members, and you asked me if you could communicate with the individual council members, if that would be an Open Meeting Law violation, or if there was another way to do it, and my instruction, using one of my favorite phrases that I use all the time is, “out of an abundance of caution I think it would be best if it came from the Town Manager.”

It's interesting that Pina, Rodman, and Solomon argued this issue with the mayor but NOT with the town attorney who is the one who made the call, the one who gave the legal advice. All Winfield did was follow that legal advice. This is an example of how the minority council members like to twist things in order to make Winfield the bad guy.

“Mayor” Solomon speaks
Vice-Mayor Barrett made a motion to approve the amended liaison assignments. Councilmember Nicolson seconded the motion and then “Mayor” Solomon blurted out, “It’s been seconded and now it’s open for discussion. Correct?"


The proper parliamentary procedure is to say, “Mr. Mayor” and wait to be recognized before speaking. Solomon did not do that. He usurped the mayor’s role and attempted to commandeer the proceedings. This from a person who just accused the mayor of being disrespectful to certain council members! Winfield was visibly annoyed but maintained his composure. (I don’t know how he does it).

The mayor runs the meetings and it’s his job to announce that the motion had been seconded and is now up for discussion. Solomon taking control of the meeting is just one more example of him being out of control. (LOVE has published numerous articles on this topic.)

Excerpts from Town of Oro Valley Parliamentary Rules

"SECTION 10. Discussion and voting procedures – 10.3 Getting the Floor

Every Councilmember desiring to speak shall address the Mayor, and upon recognition by the Mayor, shall confine himself/herself to the question under debate.

SECTION 13. Code of Conduct – 13.6 Respect

Councilmembers shall show respect to all colleagues by acting in a professional and dignified manner whether in support of the issue or expressing an adverse point of view."

In my opinion, interrupting others, usurping the mayor’s role, speaking in a condescending tone, and making unfounded accusations is neither professional nor dignified and wreaks of desperation.
---
Diane Peters has lived in Oro Valley since 2003, moving here to escape the humidity of the East Coast. She’s been involved in OV politics and development issues since 2006. In 2014, she organized a citizens group, who over a 9-month period, successfully negotiated a controversial 200-acre development project. In her past life, she worked in medical research at various University Hospitals in New England. Her interests include reading, writing, nature photography, travel, art galleries, museums, and politics.

Guest View-Don Bristow: "Mayor Shenanignans"

---


Did the Mayor and some members of the Oro Valley Council violate the Arizona’s Open Meeting Law or just display a lack of ethics? At the January 16, 2013 Council Meeting, the last agenda item covered the reappointment of Mr. Gil Alexander, an honorable town resident, to the Conceptual Design Review Board (CDRB). However, the Mayor had already sent a letter to Mr. Alexander stating that he would not be reappointed to the CDRB. In his letter, the Mayor stated that the Town Council made this decision. During the Mayor’s heated discussion at this meeting, he stated it should have said Council Liaison (not Council). Three of the Council members indicated that they were not aware of this letter or the denied reappointment until it was brought to their attention by Mr. Alexander.   Councilmembers Hornet, Waters and Snider remained silent during the heated discussion regarding awareness of the letter and the reappointment action.

The Town codes clearly state that Board members are to be appointed by Council and Mayor. Mr. Alexander had followed the proper procedure requesting reappointment to the CDRB; therefore, approval or disapproval should have been made by the Council and Mayor.  The January 16, 2013 Council Meeting was the first time Mr. Alexander’s reappointment was on the Agenda.  Why did members Hornet, Waters, and Snider support the Mayor’s actions by their silence?  Were they aware of the letter and privately authorized the Mayor’s actions? This is clearly a violation of the Arizona Open-Meeting Law. If they were unaware, why didn’t they state that or express concern for the Mayor’s action? Why did Vice-Mayor Waters, who is the Council liaison to the CDRB, second the Mayor’s motion, and why did the three of them vote in favor of the motion? These questions reflect badly on the representation Oro Valley residents are receiving from these elected officials.

The Mayor, Councilmembers Hornet, Snider, and Waters did, as usual, vote as a block to deny the reappointment of Mr. Alexander. Their reasons for not reappointing Mr. Alexander lacked substance; one reason being that someone on Council felt Mr. Alexander had no right asking for details of proposals under consideration during CDRB meetings.  The Mayor and his Council allies again showed their inconsistent decision-making.  Recently, these four reappointed a man to the Planning and Zoning Commission; a man who had been formally cited for his unacceptable conduct on the Planning and Zoning Commission

Vice-Mayor Waters angrily indicated he is still nurturing a candidate for the CDRB who will be available to fill a vacancy on the CDRB.  However, Mr. Waters’ hand-picked representative has not yet applied or been appointed. Why is Vice-Mayor Waters so confident this candidate will be appointed? Why should the Vice Mayor be nurturing a candidate for any Board or Commission?

Why do these shenanigans continue?

Don Bristow
---