The Indiana Publisher

Page 7 March 2018 The following questions were submitted by The Times (Munster), Pharos-Tribune (Logansport) and Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne): The lone Republican councilman on the Portage City Council contacted me saying he believes four Democrat council members and the Democrat clerk-treasurer held an illegal meeting. The five where photographed having breakfast together at a local res- taurant. I spoke with one of the council members who was there who said after a committee meet- ing, the five decided they would go out for breakfast. He claims they did not break the Open Door Law because there was no intent to take official action. He did admit they discussed city business during the breakfast, but also said since they are all Democrats, they are allowed to caucus. Your opinion? The Open Door Law does have some excep- tions to the definition of a meeting. One is for a "chance or social gathering not intended to avoid" the Open Door Law [See I.C. 5-14-1.5-2(c)(1)]. Another is for a caucus [See I.C. 5-14-1.5-2(c)(4)]. So the fact four Democrats had breakfast together doesn't mean there was a violation of the Open Door Law, but they need to decide which exception they are claiming – the two above don't intersect. One is social with no intent to conduct city business while the other is political with an intent to talk about strategy in accomplishing city business of some sort. If it was a social gathering, it's understandable that some city business discussion occurred since that's the subject matter that unites them socially. I'd be more concerned if the social gathering becomes a habit and you see that decisions seem to be made at the open meeting with little discussion because I'd fear the decisions are being made by the Breakfast Club. As for a caucus, it's for polit- ical strategy to prepare the coali- tion for taking "official action" at the open meeting. Are they claiming the four Democrats are a separate coalition from the other two Democrats or was it a case where the other two Democrats couldn't attend "the caucus?" I'm guessing the other two Democrats weren't part of the earlier committee meeting, so breakfast was really a social/ chance gathering. If I'm wrong and you have a four-member "caucus" sepa- rate from the other three (two Democrats and 1 Republican), then you have a story. It just sounds like someone suggested breakfast after the committee hearing and the four Democrats agreed. No violation there unless they start to conduct city busi- ness. You may need to remind them that "official action" is as little as receiving information or deliberating, not just a final vote [See IC 5-14-1.5-2(d)]. In conclusion, you need more than a photo of the group at breakfast to have a violation of the Open Door Law. Our county-owned hospital and the local high school announced a 10-year partnership where the hospital is providing athletic trainers and $500,000 to the school. In return, the school is renaming its football stadium. Big news right? It took us by surprise because it wasn't dis- cussed in the hospital board meetings. Should the agreement have been approved by the hospital board? We were told by the hospital CEO that the agreement was discussed "in committee" but I don't know what committee (whether it was a board committee or something else). What do you think? Under the Open Door Law, a governing body can hold an executive ses- sion to discuss records classified as confidential by state or federal statute. [IC 5-14-1.5-6.1(b)(7). And for hospitals, IC 16-22-2.5-2 would allow a county hospital to keep confidential "all proprietary and competitive information con- fidential. The proposed agreement would fall under this provision. So the hospital board could have discussed in an executive ses- sion, but the final vote still must occur in a public meeting – of course, the hospital may let the school board vote first and then they vote. As to a "committee" – its status under the Open Door law would be dependent upon who created the committee. If it's a committee of the hospital board, it would be subject to the Open Door Law. If it's a com- mittee created and appointed by the hospital administrator, then it doesn't fall under the Open Door Law. Wondering what your take is on a planned 'private' meeting Fort Wayne Community Schools plans concerning security - if they are within their rights for an execu- tive session? Under the Open Door Law, a governing body can hold an executive ses- sion to discuss strategy concern- ing the implementation of secu- rity systems [IC 5-14-1.5-6.1(b) (2)(C)]; or to discuss records classified as confidential by state or federal statute. [IC 5-14-1.5- 6.1(b)(7). The second option would include under the Access to Public Records Act, school safety and security measures, plans, and systems [IC 5-14-3-4(b)(18); and records whose disclosure would have a reasonable likelihood of threatening public safety by exposing a vulnerability to terror- ist attack [IC 5-14-3-4(b)(19). It would appear the school district discussion of security plans could fall under one or the other provisions of the Open Door Law. Send your questions to Steve Key, HSPA executive director and general counsel, skey@hspa.com HSPA Legal Hotline A Social gathering of councilmen not subject to Open Door Law Final vote on hospital, partnership must occur in public meeting Q Q A A For updates follow HSPA on Twitter & Facebook: @OurRight2Know, Facebook.com/Hoosier State Press Association/ School offi cials can hold 'private' sessions to discuss security plans Q

• Cover