I still wonder how "mischaracterization" of the tribal positions by observers " plays into allowing full access via closed camera. I believe the tribes could argue against outside comments during negotiations, by stating such are not part of an active negotiation and would be disruptive, but they have not argument that I feel would over ride the public interest and law. In a case where both sides are court ordered to negotiate, and where the constraints of one party (OPMA) would have not negative effect of the second party, I see no way they can impose their will. I say no negative effect as it is assumed that the state is negotiating for its population and said party would and should oversee that negotiation. I see it no different in a court stating that two parties need to mediate an agreement and one party wants only to allow the opposing attorney in the room and not the actual concerned party.