The Indiana Publisher

January 2022 IP

Hoosier State Press Association - The Indiana Publisher

Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1444404

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 8 of 8

January 2022 Page 9 that meeting. The Commissioners went onto say they did not discuss or act on the mask mandate resolution until the Sept. 13 public meeting, according to Britt's decision. During the Sept. 13 meet- ing, the Shelby County Health Department presented a Public Health Order, which the Commissioners adopted. In his decision, Britt wrote that Coffey did not provide addi- tional evidence beyond the media accounts to support her complaint. But he added that he did not agree with the Commissioners' assertion that they were not in violation because they participated on an individual basis. "For purposes of the ODL (Open Door Law), when the majority of a governing body (i.e. two or more commissioners) gather for purposes of taking offi- cial action on public business, it constitutes a meeting," he wrote. "Meetings must be open to the public unless an exception applies under the law." He went on to write that while the Commissioners contended they took no action on any of the discussed items or recommenda- tions, they should remember the Open Door Law includes actions such as receiving information and deliberating. The discussion would not qualify as an administrative func- tion meeting because what they discussed was "well beyond the routine, operational and day-to- day issues facing a county execu- tive," he wrote. He also wrote that the Commissioners could have sent one delegate to observe or par- ticipate for a brainstorming or listening session, which would not have been a violation of the Open Door Law. "During these emergent, trying times, it is all the more impera- tive that the public is privy to the conversations that lead up to decisions affecting them directly," Britt wrote. "While the later discussion and ratification of the mandate at a later public meet- ing is somewhat of a salve, the damage had already been done in fostering suspicion, regardless of intention." Open Door Continued from Page 5 Your staffers can be added to the Indiana Publisher subscription list by emailing ads@hspa.com. keep the public informed, Britt stated. "But it has a dual purpose. Those who serve on boards can use public meetings as a platform to demonstrate that a task force's work is positively benefitting the public, the right people make up the task force, and to communicate that the task force is thoughtfully deliberat- ing the issues at hand," he wrote. "To do otherwise is usually indic- tive of poor governance and a disre- gard of the community it serves." At Monday's school board meeting, Jon Mayes, school board counsel and attorney with Bose, McKinney and Evans, was asked to address the issue. Mayes said the public access counselor's informal opinion "assumes some facts that are not true." Committees the school board creates for input to the board are subject to Open Door, he said. Other committees or task forces created to provide input directly to the superintendent and administra- tion "are not subject to the Open Door law," Mayes said. Their work may generate a recommendation that the superintendent takes to the board. Mayes further clarified Tuesday that "because the committee was appointed by Dr. Haworth (or his designee, Dr. Fenton) and gave the administration team guidance, the Open Door Law does not consider that committee to be a 'governing body.' The board of school trustees did not appoint committee mem- bers." But Britt stated in an email, "Based on the way the law is writ- ten, both a school board or the administration can create a govern- ing body that is subject to the Open Door Law. It's fact-specific and depends on a number of factors but the ODL contemplates either. That's often overlooked because only the school board committee statute has been litigated." The informal opinion examined whether an advisory committee established by a school board is subject to the Open Door Law, and if so, whether the committee's closed meetings constitute a viola- tion of the law. Based on information provided to him through Kershaw's inquiry, Britt states at the start of 2020 the Vigo County School Board approved a strategic plan that called for the creation of a task force comprised of teachers, administra- tors, staff and citizens to identify a consolidation plan. Beginning in late 2020, this task force was men- tioned during various school board meetings. At one point, the superintendent described the purpose of the task force as helping with decisions regarding closing of buildings in the district and that the board authorized the establishment of the group. While the task force was estab- lished by the school board, "You assert that their meetings were closed to the public, notice for those meetings was never posted, and committee members were apparently warned to not disclose what was discussed in the meet- ings," Britt wrote. "Furthermore, when you requested copies of meeting minutes you were told that none existed." Britt pointed to two components of the law that impact the commit- tee, including if the committee is appointed by the governing body to take official action on public business. Also, official action can include receiving information, deliberating and making recom- mendations. Also, "Identifying a consolida- tion plan certainly qualifies as tak- ing official action on the school's public business," Britt writes. The Open Door Law requires the governing body of a public agency to conduct and take official action openly, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute, so the people may be fully informed, according to the informal opinion. As a result, the law requires all meetings of the governing bodies of public agencies to be open at all times to allow members of the public to observe and record the proceedings. The Vigo County School Corp. is a public agency for purposes of the ODL. The boards councils, and commissions of the school are governing bodies for purposes of the ODL. "So, unless an exception applies, all meetings of these governing bodies must be open at all times to allow members of the public to observe and record," Britt writes. Just prior to Monday's school board meeting, Meadows parent Brian C. Payne said that because of the issue raised, he believed the board should vote no on any rec- ommendation to close the school. "Credible transparency issues have been raised about how this administration has opted to make the decisions to save costs through closing elementary schools. VCSC has made an example of how NOT to openly operate a committee," he wrote. Several Meadows parents intend to file a formal complaint with the state public access counselor, Payne said. Task Force Continued from Page 5

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of The Indiana Publisher - January 2022 IP