The Indiana Publisher

October 2022 Page 6 Joe Duhownik Purdue Exponent (West Lafayette) The Oct. 7 board of trustees meeting came and went like they always do. Trustees gathered to discuss and approve multiple topics from building renovations to exceptions to the nepotism policy and more. But as in past meetings, exceptions to the nepotism policy weren't actually discussed. The board instead quickly approved those, conflict of interest disclosures and other important topics without any deliberation or dissent from a single trustee. A few easy questions were asked and answered, but nothing was challenged or seriously questioned. Indiana law requires and many earlier rulings by the state's public access counselor affirm that public boards should release ahead of time the materials public officials will use as they act in the public's behalf during their meetings. The Expo- nent has repeatedly requested such packets of Purdue's board but been denied every time it made such a request since at least 2020. Indiana Public Access Counselor Luke Britt sided with The Exponent in a recent opinion, saying Purdue's board of trustees should "reconsider its position on disclosing board packets prior to its meetings." The opinion is a response to a formal complaint about board packets and other transparency issues that The Exponent filed with Britt on April 22. "The public access counselor provides advice and assistance concerning Indiana's public access laws to members of the public and government officials and their employees," his website reads. His rulings can be used as leverage in lawsuits when members of the public, including media, sue public officials or institutions over public access and open door laws. While he has explicitly conclud- ed in the past whether an agency has violated the law, in this instance, he concluded by recommending the trustees amend their policies. His language in the opinion strongly indicates the trustees are in the wrong and should alter their procedures. Background The Exponent argued in its complaint that the board of trustees have violated access to public records laws when it refuses to release board packets before multiple meetings and schedules too many executive sessions without proper explanation. The Exponent also argued that because no deliberation or debate occurs in the public meetings, the trustees are likely to be making their decisions in secret. The board argued in its response to the PAC that it didn't deny any requests. It claimed that board packets - information given to trustees when making decisions - are considered "deliberative" and therefore don't have to be released. The board incorrectly claimed that open door laws do not require a governing body to "debate or disagree with each other in public." It also argued that its use of executive sessions is justified and that only six executive sessions are held each year. The board held eight executive sessions in 2021, according to its own website. It also held eight in 2020. Seven executive sessions have already been held this year. Enough public information? After the The Exponent made its complaint, university officials, who often ahead of the meeting have already prepared news releases to distribute right after the meeting ends, suggesting they already know what will happen, offered to give The Exponent relevant information on a flash drive afterward. The board packet shared with The Exponent in a flash drive after the meeting contain some back- ground information on the topics discussed in the public meeting. However, it mostly contains information that was already included in Powerpoint presentations at the meeting. No information was included on nepotism or conflict of interest disclosures, for instance, neither of which were discussed in the meeting yet were still passed unanimously. Both of those topics concern Purdue faculty and staff and whether there could be potential issues when hiring. As a public institution, Purdue should make those issues, like all other things the trustees discuss, public to all students, faculty, staff and commu- nity members. Britt argued that while some parts of board packets, like personnel issues and specific student matters, should be redacted before release, "it is unlikely that the entirety of the packet is non-disclos- able" before a meeting. Britt said while he hasn't made decisions on the timing of the release of such packets in the past, he recommends that the board considers releasing them "contem- poraneously with the start of the meeting." Board Chairman Mike Berghoff said that he hadn't seen the public access counselor's ruling, and that he didn't even know The Exponent had raised the issue more than a year earlier. The Exponent sent him a link to the decision on the afternoon of Oct. 7 but hasn't received a response as of Oct. 12. No real deliberation The board moved through each topic at the hours-long meeting without a single dissenting opinion. Not one objection was raised as each of the dozens of topics were passed unanimously. That has been the case at every board meeting in recent history. A trustee began Oct. 7's stated meeting by reading through each topic that was previously discussed in committee meetings earlier that morning. But at the end of that list, he read "approval of conflict of interest disclosures" and "approval of exceptions to nepotism policy." Those last two topics were never discussed in any committee meetings or the stated meeting and were glossed over in as much time as it takes to read this sentence. Britt agreed that the way the trustees make decisions in the meetings themselves violates Open Door Law. More troubling, however, is Purdue's assertion that the Open Members of the Purdue Board of Trustees, led by Chairman Michael Berghoff, conduct a meeting. Photo by Nina Taylor I The Exponent. Opinion: Purdue trustees continue to act in secret, public access counselor sides with The Exponent in ruling See Trustees, page 7

• Cover