Yea. That is a good point. They're not suppose to. But let's assume the following scenarios:
They know they are about to be sued for something and need the advice of a lawyer about what they should and shouldn't disclose. If they should be doing any additional record keeping, etc.. Disclosing privileged information means the meeting needs to be held away from public view.
They know they did something illegal and need the advice of a lawyer on how or what they should do to make things less worse. Even worse, they seek lawyer advice on how to destroy evidence legally.
I'm going to assume point #2 is what they are doing because of the extraordinary amount of effort they put into avoiding the audit.
But there is no such thing as privileged information when acting on the publics behalf. The People have a right to know EVERYTHING. Complete and total transparency. Anything less and their actions are nefarious by definition, making it urgent that the People know everything.
This is a Constitutional Republic. A government of the People, by the People and for the People. The only hidden information that can be condoned is when divulging such would put the very nation at risk and even in that the People have oversight through their elected representatives. These fools put the Nation at risk with their subterfuge. The exact opposite. It is treason.
There is no privilege when trying to hide your criminal actions in public office from the People. Not as a group acting in their public capacity. As individuals they have due process and attorney client privilege. Thats not what they are doing here.
Ah. Thanks for the pointer. I looked it up and you might be right on this that the attorney client privilege does not apply when associated with official government functions (which is this case). It only applies for personal matters outside the government body and the fact that they are seeking legal advice as part of a government function means they waive their rights. That means if subpoenad or requested in court, they might be required to disclose what they talked about
Note: not a lawyer, but did a bunch of reading and tried my best to interpret.
Yea. That is a good point. They're not suppose to. But let's assume the following scenarios:
They know they are about to be sued for something and need the advice of a lawyer about what they should and shouldn't disclose. If they should be doing any additional record keeping, etc.. Disclosing privileged information means the meeting needs to be held away from public view.
They know they did something illegal and need the advice of a lawyer on how or what they should do to make things less worse. Even worse, they seek lawyer advice on how to destroy evidence legally.
I'm going to assume point #2 is what they are doing because of the extraordinary amount of effort they put into avoiding the audit.
But there is no such thing as privileged information when acting on the publics behalf. The People have a right to know EVERYTHING. Complete and total transparency. Anything less and their actions are nefarious by definition, making it urgent that the People know everything.
This is a Constitutional Republic. A government of the People, by the People and for the People. The only hidden information that can be condoned is when divulging such would put the very nation at risk and even in that the People have oversight through their elected representatives. These fools put the Nation at risk with their subterfuge. The exact opposite. It is treason.
There is no privilege when trying to hide your criminal actions in public office from the People. Not as a group acting in their public capacity. As individuals they have due process and attorney client privilege. Thats not what they are doing here.
Ah. Thanks for the pointer. I looked it up and you might be right on this that the attorney client privilege does not apply when associated with official government functions (which is this case). It only applies for personal matters outside the government body and the fact that they are seeking legal advice as part of a government function means they waive their rights. That means if subpoenad or requested in court, they might be required to disclose what they talked about
Note: not a lawyer, but did a bunch of reading and tried my best to interpret.