The Indiana Publisher

Page 8 February 11, 2016 The following questions were sub- mitted by The Hamilton News, The Standard (Boonville) and The Herald- Times (Bloomington): I have a question on a public notice ad. I have it set up to run in an 8-point font, three column format, and I turned the tables into jpegs so I could slide those in the appropri- ate spots. However, this notice needs to run in color, which costs me an extra $100 to print. It's also loaded with tables. So how would I bill for this? I know I can upcharge 50 percent for the tables, but does the 50 percent apply only to the table portions of the docu- ment? You can apply the 50 per- cent upcharge to the entire public notice advertisement, not just the tables. As to color, when the statute was written decades ago color wasn't even an option, so it's not addressed in the statute. I suggest you explain to the client that color requires an extra charge that they can either agree to or choose to publish it all in black. If they agree, add a line in your invoice that reflects "Client requested color for publica- tion …… $100.00 (or whatever fee you decide to charge). That way if the state Board of Accounts questions the charge, it'll show that it was the client's decision. I attended a public meet- ing last night. An ordinance was introduced and dis- cussed. It was never read by title and number or in its entirety. The governing body ended up pass- ing it on first reading. Is this proper? There isn't any statute requiring an ordinance be read during a public read- ing in its entirety. The Open Door Law does say that if a governing body uses an agenda, it can't pass an item based on agenda number alone – the public has the right to understand the substance of the action being taken. But you said the ordinance was discussed, so that doesn't appear to be an issue. I would say it's unusual to have an ordinance introduced and passed at the same meeting. Generally, an ordinance is introduced at one meet- ing. Then it might be amended and/ or passed at a following meeting. This generally gives the governing board and the public time to examine the ordinance and have some input on the final product. But I have seen the parliamentary rules waived so an ordinance could be acted upon in one meeting – some- times due to a perceived need to move immediately, sometimes to circumvent the possibility that opponents might galvanize against it if given a month before the next council meeting. Seven Oaks Classical School is a charter school that just got authorized by Grace College. The school is authorized to open in the fall of 2016. I received notice of a meeting of the charter school's board on Saturday, Jan. 30 that they would be holding a meeting on Monday, Feb. 1. Do public access laws apply as soon as a charter school is authorized or will they begin to apply once the school opens? If public access laws apply, it seems like this meeting was in violation of the 48-hour requirement for public agencies to notify the media of a meet- ing. What do you think? I would say the forma- tion of the charter school board triggers its need to comply with the Open Door Law. Yes, charter school boards do fall under the scope of the Open Door Law thanks to the state legislature. I'm guessing the school board is still learning the nuances of the notice requirements. They do have to give you 48 hours notice, but they hope- fully didn't realize that weekends and holidays don't count. So yes, the notice was deficient. My suggestion is that since this is a first offense and probably not inten- tional, the newspaper should tactfully bring it to their attention as a teach- able moment. Contact Steve Key, HSPA executive director and general counsel, with media law questions at skey@hspa.com or (317) 624-4427. A n Indiana Court of Appeals decision reaf- firms the importance for local government units to comply with the state's Open Door Law. After dismissing all other claims in a lawsuit filed by a fired teacher against the Springs Valley School Corp., the three-judge panel did find a violation of the Open Door Law by the school board and sent the case back to Orange County Circuit Court for reconsideration. Risha Warren, who had been a second-grade teacher, had appealed the trial court's dismissal of her case, which alleged the school corporation had breached her contract, defamed her and violated the Open Door Law the night she was fired by the school board. The school board started an executive session to discuss Warren's status at 5 p.m. on Dec. 20, 2012. The open part of the school board meeting was scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. The closed-door session, according to the opinion written by Appellate Judge Margaret Robb, was lengthy as the school board heard from nine witnesses and examined 12 exhibits. The school board then went into deliberations on the mat- ter as Warren, her attorney Michael Kendall, and union representative Sandra Steele waited down the hall in a separate room. Other than an exchange of offer that would allow Warren to keep her job and counter-offer between the school board attorney and her, the closed-door delibera- tions continued for hours. The ruling states that Warren at 2:30 a.m. noticed through a window that cars were leaving the parking lot. The meeting memoranda noted that the school board met in its public meeting at 2:25 a.m. Dec. 21 and voted to dismiss Warren prior to adjourning at 2:33 a.m. Judges Robb, Nancy Vaidik and Rudolph Pyle III unani- mously agreed that the trial court correctly dismissed the charges of breach of contract and defamation but ordered the judge to take another look at the Open Door Law viola- tion claim. The ruling pointed to I.C. 5-14-1.5-5(h), which provides that notice of a meeting hasn't been properly given if the governing body convenes at a time so unreasonably departing from the time stated in the notice that the public is "misled or substan- tially deprived of the oppor- tunity to attend, observe, and record the meeting." Starting the meeting over seven hours late was a tech- nical violation, the school district's attorney argued before the appellate panel – a contention not accepted by the three judges. "Undoubtedly, the lateness of hour substantially deprived the public of the opportunity to attend. The fact that sev- eral members of the public nonetheless attended does not alter our conclusion. Holding a public meeting at 2:30 a.m. is unreasonable and contrary to the purpose of the Open Door Law." Judge Robb wrote that the violation both impaired pub- lic access to the meeting and affected the substance of the final action taken. Warren said she would have challenged the vote for her termination if she had known the meeting was occurring down the hall from the room where she had been waiting. The decision should serve as a clarion call to local gov- ernment units that compli- ance with the Open Door Law isn't optional, and violations have consequences. If Warren is successful in her Open Door Law claim before the Orange County judge, the Springs Valley school district could be required to start the termina- tion process over – meaning Warren was an employee through the end of her con- tract and deserving of com- pensation. She also would be eligible for reasonable attorney fees and court costs in her pursuit of the Open Door Law viola- tion point if she sought an opinion from the state's pub- lic access counselor prior to the filing of her lawsuit. Steve Key is executive director and general counsel for the Hoosier State Press Association. Key Points Steve Key Wee-hours meeting violates state law HSPA Hotline A A A Q Q Q

• Cover