LANOSGA: Education board desecrated meetings law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

LanosgaIn the state law that requires government meetings to be open to the public, there’s a wonderful preamble expressing the philosophy behind the statute. The intent of the Open Door Law, it declares, is “that the official action of public agencies be conducted and taken openly … in order that the people may be fully informed.”

You can find a similar broad statement of purpose in the state’s Access to Public Records Act. The idea is straightforward: The business of the public ought to be conducted publicly.

The concept isn’t hard to understand, and it’s not at all novel. Yet some public officials seem to have an amazing capacity for finding new ways to sidestep it.

A recent action by the State Board of Education is a case in point. All 10 members of the board signed on to a letter essentially asking legislative leaders to intervene in the process of grading Indiana’s public schools. Although that is a function of Ritz’s Department of Education—and she actually serves as chairwoman of the education board—she wasn’t told about the letter.

But this isn’t about a Republican-led board snubbing its Democratic presiding officer. Setting aside the partisan dispute, this really is about the willful exclusion of the public from what is clearly public business.

Under the Open Door statute, a public agency’s governing body, such as the Board of Education, can take official action only at open meetings of which the public has been properly notified.

Unanimously asking for legislative intervention is indisputably an official action as defined by the statute. Yet this action was taken outside of public view via an email exchange among board members and staff.

The Open Door Law doesn’t provide much specific guidance on email exchanges like this and is even somewhat vague regarding telephone conference calls. But virtual meetings using those tools can easily stray into the territory of official action, and a broad reading of the statute (which is stipulated in the Open Door Law, by the way) would clearly require those discussions to be open to the public.

Our officials, however, seem to prefer the narrow view of public access.

Here we are in what is supposed to be the most open, information-driven society ever. But all around us are efforts to restrict the information citizens need to make educated choices about policies and politicians.

And it happens at all levels of government.

We might be able to learn more about federal law enforcement efforts to snoop on the U.S. mail, for instance, but the Postal Service has demanded that the requestor of the pertinent records pay nearly half a million dollars for them. That and numerous other breaches against open access have emanated from a federal government President Obama pledged would be the most transparent in history.

Another chief executive, former Gov. Mitch Daniels, made a strikingly similar pledge before taking office in 2007, saying his administration would be the most open in state history. Naturally, one of his first acts was to push for greater secrecy in economic development deals.

Gov. Mike Pence, Daniels’ successor, didn’t make grandiose pledges about open government. But he did acknowledge that public access allows citizens to hold government accountable. And he did promise, among other things, to make it easier for citizens to learn about and attend public meetings.

The Board of Education’s action isn’t Pence’s fault, but maybe it’s a good impetus for the state to begin acting on his promise.•


Lanosga is an assistant professor of journalism at Indiana University and president of the Indiana Coalition for Open Government. Send comments on this column to ibjedit@ibj.com.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Only half a million TV Viewers? And thats an increase? I knew Indycar was struggling but I didn't know it was that bad. Hell, if NASCAR hits 5 Million viewers everyone starts freaking out saying its going down hill. It has a long way to before Indycar even hits NASCAR's bad days.

  2. IU has been talking that line for years with no real progress even with the last Dean, Dr. Brater. Why will an outsider, Dr. Hess, make a difference? With no proof of additional resources (cash in the bank), and a concrete plan to move an academic model that has been outdated for decades with a faculty complacent with tenure and inertia, I can count on IU to remain the same during the tenure of Dr. Hess. One ought to look to Purdue and Notre Dame for change and innovation. It is just too bad that both of those schools do not have their own medical school. Competition might wake up IU. My guess is, that even with those additions to our State, IU will remain in its own little world squandering our State's tax dollars. Why would any donor want to contribute to IU with its track record? What is its strategy to deal with the physician shortage for our State? New leadership will not be enough for us to expect any change.

  3. How do you think the Bridges got approved? I spent a couple days researching PAC's and individual contributions to some city council members during that time. My printouts were inches thick on the two I concentrated on. Finally gave up. Was disgusted with all the donations, and who they were from. Would have taken me days and days to compile a complete list. Tried to give it to the Star reporter, but he thought it was all just fine. (and apparently he was treated well himself) He ended up being laid off or fired though. And then of course, there was land donated to the dad's club, or city, as a partial payoff. All done in the shining example of "charity." No, none of these contributions are a coincidence.

  4. I agree what kind of help or if any will be there for Dr. Ley's patients. I was a patient myself.

  5. What about the hundreds of patients who sought this doctor for the right reasons, to quit drugs. what option do these patients now have, experience horrible withdrawl or return to heroin?? those are the choices. what about the children of these former addicts who's parent(s) WILL not b able to maintain their job, for @ least 2 weeks.. There needs to b an emergency clinic opened for these patients.