legal action. In Houman v. Mayor & Council of the Borough of Pompton Lakes, 155 N.J.Super. 129, 382 A.2d 413, 425-28 (1977), the New Jersey Superior Court held that the council could discuss in an executive session whether to appeal to the State Tax Court but that the council violated the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act when it took formal action to do so in executive session. Similar to section 38-431.03(A)(4), New Jersey law permits executive sessions only to “discuss” pending or anticipated litigation. Id. at 421. That court reasoned that “discuss” does not include final decisions, and hence a decision to appeal is not a “discussion” but rather a final decision that must be made in public. Id. at 428. Cf. City of Danville v. Laird, 223 Va. 271, 288 S.E.2d 429, 431 (1982) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 14 The Arizona open meeting law compels a
recognizing presumption in favor of public inspection and copying of matters received into evidence at public session of trial holding that council discussion in executive session of whether to appeal did not violate the open meeting law given that ultimate decision to adopt ordinance to meet the objections of trial court was made in public holding that newspaper had a sufficient interest under the common law to request access to minutes and related documents of governmental meeting held in executive session holding that a party waived its objections on appeal to an affidavit presented in support of a motion for summary judgment by failing to raise its objections to the trial court recognizing that com missions may act by majority vote on any matter other than decision to meet in executive session