You are here: Home / Archives for IDOG

New county commissioner wants windows in office doors for greater transparency

January 17, 2015 by

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

COEUR d’ALENE – Marc Eberlein is bringing transparency to the highest offices of county government.

Literally.

Eberlein, who was sworn in as a Kootenai County commissioner on Monday, just hasn’t been comfortable with the door to his office. So next week, the commissioners are scheduled to hear from county facilities director Shawn Riley, who will present options for windows in their doors.

Eberlein’s not taking credit.

“The idea was my wife’s,” he said Friday.

And it seemed like more than a prudent one, he said.

“I don’t like the idea of closing the door without a window in it,” he said. “There’s a lot of accusations brought against people.”

Commissioner Dan Green said Friday he’s completely on board with the change.

“A lot of the doors in the county have one,” Green said.

The idea is that having a window reduces the chances of a lawsuit, in case somebody might suggest something improper happened behind a closed door.

“I would hate for somebody to ever make accusations,” Green said.

There is also the advantage of windows providing security, Green said.

“When Marc brought the idea up, I started looking around – a lot of them have them,” Green said.

Riley on Friday agreed that having windows in doors is a common practice for county offices, especially ones where sensitive matters are often discussed.

Riley said county employees working in probation, county assistance and auditing have windows in their doors.

“For a lot of them it’s a safety issue as well,” he said. “That’s the driving force behind it.”

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

Filed Under: Articles

Committee dials back public records review proposal

January 12, 2015 by

From the Idaho Statesman

Cities and counties continue to balk at a proposal to create a hearing commission to resolve public records disputes at the state and local level.

“It is unprecedented for this to happen. I don’t know of any other instance where a state entity would have jurisdiction, essentially almost judicial jurisdiction, over the decision of a local government entity,” said Association of Idaho Cities Director Seth Grigg during a meeting Monday to consider drafting public records review legislation. “We are very uncomfortable with this whole process.”

In Idaho, citizens are solely responsible for enforcing the state’s public records laws, which apply to local and state governments. If an agency wrongfully denies access to a public record, a citizen’s lone remedy is a lawsuit, which can be a costly and intimidating process.

Gov. Butch Otter’s recently appointed public records ombudsman, Cally Younger, is heading a committee to find an alternative way to resolve public records disputes, avoid costly lawsuits and help both the public and government employees understand and comply with state law.

The committee comprises representatives from the Idaho Association of Counties, Association of Idaho Cities, Newspaper Association of Idaho, Idaho Press Club, Associated Press and the Attorney General’s Office. The committee’s goal is to introduce legislation this session creating a statewide public records review process.

Under a proposal presented to the committee last month, a citizen could go to the public records ombudsman to challenge an agency’s decision or address other issues. The ombudsman could mediate and issue an advisory, but not binding, opinion. If either party was not satisfied with the ombudsman’s recommendation, it could appeal to a five-member hearing commission, which would make a binding decision. The hearing commission’s decision could be appealed to a judge, who would conduct an independent review.

“Putting ourselves in a position where we are subject to the decision-making authority of either a commission or an ombudsman is problematic for us,” Grigg told the committee.

He said local governments also are concerned about “having a lay commission who may or may not have adequate training in dealing with public record requests essentially overturning the action of a city or county.”

As a compromise, the committee agreed Monday to dial back the proposal by eliminating the commission and instead test-run for one year or two an ombudsman who could mediate and issue an advisory, but not binding, opinion.

Making the position temporary would give the committee time to collect information on the type of and frequency of public records disputes and then decide if the review process needs to be modified.

“I think there will be a higher level of comfort with this,” Grigg told the committee.

“I would rather have the whole hog,” said committee member and Idaho Press Club President Betsy Z. Russell. “But this is a really good first step. The biggest problem we have with this current hole in our public records law is that people have absolutely no place to turn if they can’t afford to hire an attorney and go to court. Having some place to turn would be a really good first step.”

The committee will resume discussing drafting legislation later this month.

From the Idaho Statesman

Filed Under: Articles

Idaho cities, counties wary of proposed public-records review process

December 16, 2014 by

From the Idaho Statesman

In Idaho, citizens are solely responsible for enforcing the state’s public records laws. If an agency wrongfully denies access to a public record, a citizen’s lone remedy is a lawsuit, which can be a costly and intimidating process.

Gov. Butch Otter’s recently appointed public records ombudsman, Cally Younger, is heading a committee considering an alternative: a statewide public record review process. The system would be meant to resolve public record disputes, avoid costly lawsuits, and help both the public and government employees understand and comply with the law.

“We think this could really make a difference in Idaho by remedying the biggest hole we have in our public records law, which is that the only thing you can do when you get a denial – even if it is a clearly wrong denial – is to hire a lawyer and file a lawsuit against your own government,” Betsy Z. Russell, a committee member and president of the Idaho Press Club, said during a meeting Monday.

Under the proposed review process – the committee is drafting legislation – a citizen could go to the public records ombudsman to challenge an agency’s decision, contest fees charged for public records or address other issues. The ombudsman could mediate and issue an advisory, but not binding, opinion.

If either party was not satisfied with the ombudsman’s recommendation, it could appeal to a five-member hearing committee, which would make a binding decision. The hearing committee, appointed by the governor, would comprise two private citizens, an elected city or county official, a member of the media and a representative from the state historical archives.

The hearing committee’s decision could be appealed to a judge, who would conduct an independent review. At any time during the process, a citizen could bypass the review and file a lawsuit – at his or her own expense.

Cities and counties are balking at the plan, according to Association of Idaho Cities and Idaho Association of Counties representatives who sit on Younger’s committee.

“We are not overly enthused about this,” said Seth Grigg, director of the cities’ association.

Grigg suggested creating the review process at the state level first, “so that our folks can see how it plays out, get some level of comfort with it and then roll it out at the local level.”

Idaho’s public record and open meeting laws apply equally to all local and state governments, from cemetery districts to the state police.

City and county concerns include having an ombudsman and hearing committee members who do not deal with local government records “second-guessing” decisions made by city or county prosecutors about which records cannot be released or require redaction. “It is kind of a scary idea,” said Idaho Association of Counties policy analyst Dan Blocksom.

Jeremy Pisca, the director of the Newspaper Association of Idaho who also sits on the committee, thinks the review process should apply to all government entities that must abide by the state’s public records law. “A lot of the abuses are taking place at the local level. That is definitely a concern,” he said.

Over time, the hearing committee could address issues and, if warranted, recommend changes to clarify and strengthen public records law, thereby reducing disputes.

From the Idaho Statesman

Filed Under: Articles

Standing-room only for Sandpoint open government workshop

December 15, 2014 by

It was standing-room only in Sandpoint as 75-plus people filled the Sandpoint Library’s community room for a workshop on Idaho’s open meeting and public records laws on Thursday, Dec. 11, 2014 – a record turnout for Sandpoint, which had half as big a crowd the last time IDOG’s open government sessions came to town in 2011.

“In the simplest terms, the open meeting law is your ticket to the show, and the show is government,” Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane told the crowd. “When in doubt, open it up.”

Those attending ranged from the county sheriff to local elected officials to government employees, reporters, a newly elected state lawmaker and lots of interested citizens. However, the Bonner County Daily Bee, which co-sponsored the session, pointed out in the next day’s paper that Sandpoint city officials skipped the workshop – and held a controversial, closed-to-the-public meeting about oil and coal train traffic in the region the same afternoon.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, the lead presenter at the workshop, said, “It’s important that we have an understanding about how to access information in our government. It’s really important, and the reason for that is the greatest strength in our system is public involvement. … Our system works because people can have access to information.”

New Daily Bee publisher Jim McKiernan welcomed the crowd, and members of the audience participated in a series of humorous skits as they learned about the provisions and requirements of the Idaho Open Meeting Law and the Idaho Public Records Act. Attendees also left with handouts including the Attorney General’s manuals on both laws.

“I picked up several things I didn’t know,” wrote local writer Bob Wynhausen in his evaluation of the event. An official from the city of Priest River wrote that he planned to immediately put to use the information he learned about rules for executive sessions.

“It was a great refresher on all public meeting laws,” wrote another attendee. A fire district commissioner also called the session a “great refresher,” and said his district will work on “more properly prepared agendas.”

A citizen wrote that she learned “too much to list!” Wrote an elected official, “The manuals are very helpful.”

A county employee wrote, “I am a records clerk, so I can use this information on a daily basis.”

Kane explained that whether or not something is a public record doesn’t depend on where or how it’s created or transmitted – it depends on the content. “The question is what does it contain. If it contains the public’s business, that’s public,” he said.

That’s even if public officials have used their own phones, computers or private email accounts to send the messages, texts or other items – if the message is about conducting the public’s business, it’s a public record, and any member of the public is entitled to request access to it.

The public records law’s definitions are broad: A “writing” is defined as not just written material, but includes “any means of recording,” so it takes in videos, texts, audio recordings and more. A “public record” is then defined as: “Any writing containing information relating to the conduct or administration of the public’s business.”

Exemptions from disclosure, on the other hand, are required to be narrowly construed, and limited to specific circumstances.

Under the law, if a requester is wrongly denied a public record, the sole remedy is to bring suit in court. There, the burden is on the government to prove that an exemption applies.

The law requires a response to a public records request within three days, but Kane said, “My best legal advice is to get them out as quickly as possible – just because you have three days, you don’t have to take three days.”

If the records will take longer to gather or redact, an agency can notify the requester it will take up to 10 days, but Kane cautioned that’s not 10 days to think about whether or not to release the record. That decision should be made within three days.

The Sandpoint session was the 33rd open government seminar IDOG has held around Idaho since 2004; the project is funded in part by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation through the National Freedom of Information Coalition.

Filed Under: Past Seminars, Seminar Results

Trio of takeaways from workshop

December 14, 2014 by
Editorial from the Coeur d’Alene Press

Three things became clear in a hurry Wednesday night at the Coeur d’Alene Inn.

One, Lawrence Wasden, Idaho’s outstanding attorney general, missed his true calling. He should be in the movies.

Two, a pack of journalists playing various roles as public servants in skits are right where they should be: In dimly lit, heavily insulated newsrooms. Hollywood will survive without them.

And three, the citizens of Idaho will be the big beneficiaries as our state makes slow but steady progress in the realm of public record and open meeting laws.

Did you know that you have a right to much of the recorded business of public entities, who have a specified amount of time to provide you that information or explain why they won’t? And did you know that those public entities by law can’t charge you anything for their first two hours of work to get those documents, nor is there a charge for the first 100 pages of copying those documents? You’re not alone. Some local public officials apparently aren’t aware of those rules, either.

But that was part of the point of Wednesday’s workshop, which drew 80-plus people – roughly twice the size of the second biggest crowd statewide as Wasden & Co. have taken this important show on the road. When nearly four hours of skits and point-by-point explanations and Q&A sessions had concluded, understanding of these sometimes complex laws had increased significantly.

One benefit that bodes well for the public is perhaps a new or renewed spirit of cooperation.

Case in point: On Thursday, mere hours after the workshop had ended, a Press reporter working on today’s front-page story was attempting to set up an interview. He was a bit vague in his request for the meeting. The public official seemed to be skeptical; was this a newspaper attempt at a “gotcha?” Increasingly, the reporter appeared to grow suspicious; what’s the public official hiding? Their correspondence was taking place via email – a frequent culprit in miscommunication.

Eventually, the reporter called the public official, was clear and detailed in what he was seeking. The public official, in turn, then went beyond what the reporter expected, trying to ensure all relevant information would be available to the public. And today you see the result of not just their work, but their cooperation.

Judging by the strong showing of public officials who attended the workshop and, sadly, those who did not, there’s both reason for optimism and concern. Government operates most effectively and responsibly when its actions are transparent to citizens. We’re in pretty good shape on that front in Idaho. However, there’s certainly room to grow.

Editorial from the Coeur d’Alene Press
Filed Under: Articles

Workshops cover Idaho open government laws

December 14, 2014 by

From The Spokesman-Review

It was standing-room only in Sandpoint late last week as 75-plus people filled the Sandpoint Library’s community room for a three-hour workshop on Idaho’s open meeting and public records laws. There were four such sessions in North Idaho in as many days, all sponsored by Idahoans for Openness in Government and featuring Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden.

Those attending ranged from the county sheriff to local elected officials to government employees, reporters, a newly elected state lawmaker and lots of interested citizens. However, the Bonner County Daily Bee, which co-sponsored the session, pointed out the next day that Sandpoint city officials skipped the workshop – and held a controversial, closed-to-the-public meeting about oil and coal train traffic in the region the same afternoon.

Mayor Carrie Logan said, “We had meetings scheduled. Nobody was prevented from attending.”

She said she never heard about the open meetings workshop until the day before, though IDOG had mailed a letter and flier to the city three weeks in advance and followed up with emails to the mayor and council the week before. “It got buried in my onslaught of emails,” Logan said.

City Attorney Scot Campbell said in an email, “I, along with other council members have attended your previous open meeting/public record seminars.” (Disclosure: I’m the president of IDOG, Idaho’s nonprofit open government coalition, and helped conduct all four sessions.)

At the Sandpoint open meetings and public records workshop, Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane told the crowd, “When in doubt, open it up.” He said, “In the simplest terms, the Open Meeting Law is your ticket to the show, and the show is government.”

The coal train meeting was an informational session, Logan said, designed to allow a presentation on the latest information about the risks of the train traffic to an invited group including the mayors of Dover, Ponderay and Bonners Ferry, state Sen. Shawn Keough, two staffers from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, one county commissioner, the mayor and one city council member.

“It was just informational on behalf of people that are interested in spreading the word about the oil and coal issues,” Logan said. The PowerPoint presentation from the meeting may be presented later to the other cities’ councils, she said.

During the meeting, a member of the public knocked on the door, entered and asked if it was an open meeting; he was told no and turned away.

“No decisions were made – it was a conversation,” Logan said. “It never occurred to me to notice it up as a public meeting. … It just didn’t rise to that.”

Campbell noted that no quorum was present of any government board that could make a decision on the issue, so technically there was no violation of the Idaho Open Meeting Law. “Based on the time constraints, a public meeting would not have been as effective as a small meeting of local leaders talking to Senator Keough,” he said.

Asked if it would have hurt to let the public in, Logan said it wouldn’t, but added, “We were in a small, cramped room.”

Wasden, the lead presenter at the open meetings and public records workshop, told the Sandpoint crowd, “It’s important that we have an understanding about how to access information in our government. It’s really important, and the reason for that is the greatest strength in our system is public involvement. … Our system works because people can have access to information.”

The sessions featured interactive skits, with audience members playing the roles, to demonstrate how the Open Meeting Law and Public Records Act are supposed to work – or in some cases, how they’re not. Attendees gave the sessions high marks in evaluations; all left with multiple handouts including copies of the attorney general’s manuals on the Open Meeting Law and Public Records Act.

The Sandpoint session was the 33rd open government seminar IDOG and Wasden have conducted in Idaho since 2004. The project is funded in part by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation through the National Freedom of Information Coalition.

Eighty people attended the Wednesday evening session in Coeur d’Alene; close to 30 on Tuesday night in Moscow; and close to 50 on Monday night in Lewiston. The sessions reached more than 230 people in North Idaho all told. All were free and open to the public.

In each case, the local newspapers co-sponsored the workshops; the Coeur d’Alene session was co-sponsored by the Coeur d’Alene Press and The Spokesman-Review.

Welcoming the crowd in Coeur d’Alene, Press managing editor Mike Patrick said if the two competing newspapers can work together to promote better knowledge of the state’s open government laws, everyone can.

From The Spokesman-Review

Filed Under: Articles

Sandpoint bars the public from rail issues meeting

December 12, 2014 by

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

City of Sandpoint officials deny violating the state’s open meeting law the same day Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden was in town to educate officials and the public on that very law.

The closed meeting was hosted by the city and included its mayor and the mayors of Dover and Ponderay. Bonner County Commission Chairman Cary Kelly, state Sen. Shawn Keough and officials from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality also attended the meeting.

No public notice of the 1 p.m. meeting could be found, although an agenda obtained by The Bonner County Daily Bee indicates that it concerned oil and coal train traffic.

Representatives from the Idaho Conservation League and Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper, which is headed by Sandpoint Councilwoman Shannon Williamson, gave presentations to the other officials, according to the agenda.

Although the city posted no notice of the meeting, the county commission had it noted on its weekly calendar.

Sandpoint resident Randy Stolz said he intended on attending the meeting, but was told by Sandpoint Mayor Carrie Logan that it was closed to the public.

“I was hoping to attend and I was bounced,” Stolz said.

The city defended its decision to keep the public from the meeting.

“No actions were taken. It was just an informational meeting trying to clarify and identify risks,” Logan said.

City attorney Scot Campbell, a former deputy state attorney general, was unwilling or unable to cite the section of Idaho Code the city relied upon to prohibit the public’s attendance. Campbell simply said it was not a public meeting because there was only one county commissioner and a council member present.

The topics discussed during the meeting do not appear to meet the criteria for a closed meeting. Those criteria include labor negotiations, personnel matters and pending litigation.

The alleged open meeting law violation occurred the same day Wasden and Idahoans for Openness in Government conducted a workshop in Sandpoint to educate local government officials, journalists and the public on Idaho’s open meeting law.

No Sandpoint city officials attended the workshop.

 From the Coeur d’Alene Press
Filed Under: Articles

Learning the law: Workshop provides insight to open meetings, public records

December 11, 2014 by

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said there is one sheet of music used by every individual in the public sector as it relates to providing Idahoans with information.

At the Best Western Plus Coeur d’Alene Inn on Wednesday night, Wasden led a workshop intended to provide insight and clarity into that sheet of music – commonly known as state statute.

Wadsen and Idahoans for Openness in Government, a nonprofit coalition which promotes freedom of information, have held 32 of the seminars throughout the state since 2004. At the center of the sessions are two state laws – Idaho Open Meeting Law and Idaho Public Records Law – which directly affect information both the media and the general public can obtain from public entities.

“The great strength of our American system is public participation. The great weakness of our American system is public participation, or actually a lack thereof,” Wasden said. “So in order for us to enhance that experience of participation in government, it’s important that you understand the rules by which you access information and watch government in operation.”

Members of the public, local media and public officials composed the more than 80 people in attendance at the event, which was co-sponsored by the Coeur d’Alene Press and the Spokesman-Review.

The workshop centered around a series of skits performed by members of the media and public officials, used to illustrate various components of the two state laws. Actors in the skits played roles opposite of the ones they find themselves in professionally.

One skit, which dealt with the quorum component of open meeting law, featured three journalists playing county commissioners eating breakfast at a coffee shop. Kootenai County Commissioner Dan Green played a newspaper reporter who just happened to sit next to the group.

During the skit, the three county commissioners begin talking about implementing decisions on everything from a pesky county prosecutor to the construction of a nuclear plant next to a wildlife preserve. Green, in his role as a reporter, was noticeably excited about his good fortune while rapidly taking notes.

“Hold it! I’m blowing the whistle and throwing the flag,” Wasden finally said, bringing the skit to a close. “There’s no question about it that there was indeed illegal procedure in this one. If a governing body meets outside of a posted public meeting and conducts its business, they can each face a penalty that they have to pay out of their own pocket.”

After the skit, Idaho Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane gave an overview of the state’s open meeting laws. He called the statute one of the most important laws in the state and said it applies to the majority of governing bodies at every level.

“Government is a trusteeship,” Kane said. “We trust the government to make decisions with our best interests in mind. Open meeting law is your (the public’s) ticket to watch the show. The whole point of it is for citizens to be able to watch their government in action.”

In the first of three skits on public records law, Spokesman-Review reporter Scott Maben played the role of a county commissioner trying to get a county prosecutor, played by Coeur d’Alene Press reporter Devin Heilman, to limit the release of inter-office emails to a local newspaper.

During the skit, Maben argued that the emails, which contained threats to public employees if they spoke to the local paper, were personnel matters and shouldn’t be released. Heilman patiently tried to explain why those emails were in fact public record and had to be released under state law.

“Just calling a record a personnel record doesn’t make it one,” Wasden said after the skit concluded. “A personnel record is only information you would find in an employee’s file.”

For more information on Idaho’s Public Records and Open Meeting Laws, visit the Attorney General’s Office website at www.ag.idaho.gov.

From the Coeur d’Alene Press

Filed Under: Articles

Crowd in CdA learns the Idaho Open Meeting law is everyone’s ‘ticket to the show’

December 10, 2014 by

Eighty people filled a meeting room at the Coeur d’Alene Inn the evening of Dec. 10, 2014 to learn about Idaho’s open meeting and public records laws, from county commissioners to newspaper reporters, school trustees to city clerks, state lawmakers to interested citizens.

“The open meeting law is your ticket to the show,” Deputy Idaho Attorney General Brian Kane told the crowd. “Anybody who has ever gone to a meeting and seen a vote without any discussion – that’s not a good sign.” Coeur d’Alene retiree Frank Orzell, with a big grin, responded from the audience with a double thumbs-up.

Kane said members of a board from eastern Idaho once bragged to him that they had the shortest meetings in the state. “To me, that’s a sign that there’s something wrong,” he said. “The open meeting law wants you to have those deliberations. Don’t take that away from the public, when they’ve got their ticket to the show.”

The public records law, meanwhile, is the public’s “fishing license,” Kane explained. People have a right to access information about their government, regardless of why they want it – even if they’re just fishing around for something. Holding up the light-blue Idaho Open Meeting Law Manual and the bright-red Idaho Public Records Law manual – every attendee received copies of both – Kane said, “If this is your ticket to the show, this is your government fishing license.”

The session was put on by Idahoans for Openness in Government, and is part of a series in North Idaho this week, which wraps up with another workshop Thursday afternoon in Sandpoint.

Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden was the lead presenter at all the sessions, which are free and open to the public. “These statutes are especially important,” Wasden told the Coeur d’Alene crowd, “because they really are at the heart of what we are as an American people. It is important that you understand the rules by which you access information and watch government.”

The session featured humorous interactive skits, with audience members playing the roles, to demonstrate how the open meeting law and public records law are supposed to work – or in some cases, how they’re not. In one, Kootenai County Clerk Jim Brannon portrayed “Crusty, the reporter,” complaining about a closed meeting of a fictional City Council; soothing Crusty’s concerns was “Trusty, the city clerk,” played by Coeur d’Alene Press reporter Keith Cousins. Among those taking on roles on Wednesday night were former state Rep. Gary Ingram, the original author of Idaho’s open meeting law when he served in the Legislature in the 1970s; Ingram also was honored during the session.

Attendees gave the session top marks, even though it went far into a late and dark December evening. Wrote a reporter – who sent this out as a Tweet – “Ticket to the show. Check. Fishing license. Check. Great job tonight!”

Wrote a fire commissioner, “Technical details were needed for clarification – well done!”

Wrote a citizen: “Lawrence Wasden is hilarious. Nice job all around!”

A local official called the session a “great refresher on the do’s and don’ts.” An elected official wrote that her takeway from the evening was, “Disclose, be open, public, cooperate!”

The Coeur d’Alene session was co-sponsored by the Coeur d’Alene Press and The Spokesman-Review. Welcoming the crowd, Press managing editor Mike Patrick said if the two competing newspapers can work together to promote better knowledge of the state’s open government laws, everyone can.

Filed Under: Past Seminars, Seminar Results

Crowd turns out for open government workshop in Lewiston

December 10, 2014 by

 

More than 45 people gathered at Lewis-Clark State College in Lewiston the evening of Dec. 8, 2014 for the first of four open-government workshops in North Idaho this week featuring Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden. The free sessions, sponsored by Idahoans for Openness in Government, or IDOG, cover how to comply with Idaho’s two key open government laws, the Idaho Open Meeting Law and the Idaho Public Records Act, and are for local and state government officials and employees, reporters, editors and photographers from all media, and interested citizens.

Monday night’s session, co-sponsored by the Lewiston Tribune, included interactive skits in which audience members took on roles, including one in which Doug Bauer of the Tribune portrayed a county prosecutor and Jaynie Bentz of the Port of Lewiston a county commissioner, helping illustrate the do’s and don’ts and generating laughs along the way. Lewiston Tribune Publisher Butch Alford guaranteed the session would be worth the price of admission, or he’d refund double the price – it was free.

Among the issues that came up during the session: Chief Deputy Attorney General Brian Kane noted that members of public boards shouldn’t be texting one another during meetings. “We’ve actually had cases of folks texting during a meeting and not having the discussion,” he said. “If you’re texting during the meeting, you’re robbing the public of the purpose of the Open Meeting Law.” Plus, he noted, those texts become public records and the public’s entitled to see them.

He also emphasized a line in the Open Meeting Law that says the “mere presence of legal counsel” does not justify a closed executive session; the law requires more than that. “The corollary to that is folks will send an email and copy it to their attorney, and claim it’s attorney-client privilege” to evade the public records law, Kane said. “It doesn’t work that way.”

When an audience member asked where notice should be posted if a board meeting is held at a board member’s home, the answer was: That’s not advised. A public meeting means anyone can come in, even to that home. But if that’s the place, notice must be posted somewhere prominent, like on the front door or the mailbox out front.

In evaluations, participants gave the session high marks. One public agency employee wrote that he learned something he can put to use right away: Information on what really qualifies under the “labor negotiations” exemption from the Open Meeting Law, and on how to “cure” open meeting violations by redoing the meeting in public. The labor negotiations exemption is for formal negotiations between the agency and a union representing its employees; not for general discussion of employment issues.

A citizen who attended said he learned how to be more watchful of local events – something he really wants to do. A local official said she learned to watch agenda changes, and follow the proper procedures for them. A reporter called the session “informative.” Another member of the news media wrote that his takeaway was: “Public process is our ticket to democracy!”

The IDOG workshops are funded in part by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation through the National Freedom of Information Coalition.

Filed Under: Past Seminars, Seminar Results
« Previous Page
Next Page »