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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.