After recent issues, state Open Door Law becomes salient topic

Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Banner Graphic assistant editor Jared Jernagan listens as LWV President Leslie Hanson speaks on an element of the Open Door Law during the Community Conversation last month.
Banner Graphic/BRAND SELVIA

“In all instances, governing bodies are encouraged to be mindful of the mere appearance of impropriety.”

Taken from the Handbook on Indiana’s Public Access Laws, this sentiment encapsulates a core issue of trust between government officials and the public in general. However, the same can also be applied to issues of transparency.

As such, the Indiana Open Door Law enters the discussion along the lines of community members being able to access public information. But as the handbook implies, the actions of a council or school board, even if they are found to not be malicious, can arouse suspicion.

Violations of public access and open door laws and their underlying requirements, not all of which are clear-cut, have encouraged a dialogue in the past month among some local government officials.

It thus seemed fitting that on the heels of these incidents, two advocates of Indiana’s Open Door Law encouraged a discussion about its complexities and whims during the most recent Community Conversation.

League of Women Voters President Leslie Hanson, a longtime Open Door Law advocate, and Banner Graphic assistant editor Jared Jernagan spoke to a mix of public officials and concerned citizens on a September Saturday morning.

As always, this Community Conversation was sponsored by the Greencastle League of Women Voters, the Banner Graphic, the Putnam County Public Library and the Greater Greencastle Chamber of Commerce.

Jernagan and Hanson used a handout of requirements pulled from the Indiana Code as a guide for the discussion. The code specifies which groups must observe the Open Door Law and what constitutes a meeting. The law also denotes what kinds of information may be discussed and posted to the public.

However, the discussion focused equally on how convoluted and confusing the law can become in certain cases. In turn, both acknowledged that violations happen either because clerical errors are made or government officials simply aren’t aware.

“Normally, they really are honest mistakes,” Hanson said. “Although, the backbone of the law is pretty clear on what boards and councils should not do.”

As she and Jernagan went through the handout, scrutinizing adherence to the law and holding government officials accountable went hand in hand. Hanson stressed actions which the public can take, such as recording a meeting.

However, she added that community members must also respect a body’s authority by not disrupting a session outrightly or going into an executive session.

“You have to be careful on both sides,” Hanson said. “There is a fine line with what we are not able to do and what they are allowed to do.”

For both Hanson and Jernagan, adhering to the Open Door Law is much about maintaining best practices. Hanson added that the public must trust that officials are doing their due diligence, though they may sometimes fail in doing so.

“I will say that in 95 percent of cases, it’s a mistake; and it may be because they are trying to be efficient,” Jernagan said. “But democracy is not efficient, and we need to be mindful about them being open with the public.”

Jernagan then went on to share an anecdote of one official who cared enough about the Open Door Law to actually leave the meeting of another board, lest his own board commit a violation.

Several years ago, Jernagan said, Putnam County officials were discussing some item of ongoing importance to both the Putnam County Commissioners and Putnam County Council. As such, several council members attended a commissioners meeting.

Partway through the meeting, Council President Darrel Thomas scanned the room and realized that four council members — a majority of his board — was in attendance. Unusre if this gathering of a quorum would constitute a public meeting, Thomas quietly excused himself.

“I didn’t think anything of it,” Jernagan said. “I thought it was good to see so many of them at the meeting.”

As it turned out, the gathering did not consitute a meeting because it was a chance gathering and the four men did not actually discuss the issues together.

Jernagan praised the retired Thomas for erring on the side of caution.

Hanson added that there is a “difference between following the law and following the spirit of the law.” In other words, while officials can respect transparency, Hanson believes it is their duty to adhere to it.

Though the Open Door Law and Access to Public Records Act are distinct, they are intrinsically related through similar procedures. Jernagan added as such that even Luke Britt, Indiana’s public access counselor, would say the law is not clear-cut in all cases.

“Luke doesn’t claim to have all the answers,” Jernagan said. “Even he will have to determine on an individual basis whether a violation occurs. He goes back and looks at what the law says.”

“We don’t know everything about how the Open Door Law works, but we’ve worked with it enough to spot these violations and work on how to correct them for the future,” Hanson added.

Toward the end of the presentation, Hanson directly pointed out that highlighting Open Door violations is not meant to get those in local government in trouble. Rather, such scrutiny can play a role in bettering their routines.

“For me, it’s about intent, about whether it was malicious or not,” Hanson said. “I’ll try to talk to them about (a violation) so that it won’t happen again in the future. We’re, not here to ‘gotcha’ people.

“The point is to make this better going forward,” she added. “These are teachable moments.”

It was notable that only three county officials attended the session. Attorney Trudy Selvia, who is unelected but nonetheless advises the county council on legal procedures, was also in attendance.

Following the publishing of the Banner Graphic’s report of the Cloverdale Town Council’s regular September session, questions were raised concerning the “non-verbal vote” on approving the town’s budget for next year.

In a call from the Banner Graphic, Clerk-Treasurer Cheryl Galloway conceded that the vote was not handled as it should have been. This is despite each member’s decision being available on Gateway, as well as at the town office, soon after.

However, Galloway also stated that the council first saw the budget in June, and no comments or concerns were raised by them or the public during either the mandated public hearing or the September session. Both fulfilled the requirement of holding two readings before a budget can be passed.

She also brought up the tension surrounding the noncompliance citations recently issued to the owners of the damaged buildings on Main Street. She added that she was weary of further criticism, implying the council wanted to simply pass the budget and move on.

Council President Larry Fidler, Vice President Cindy Holland and at-large member Gary Bennington all approved the budget, while at-large councilman Greg Jay abstained due to a conflict of interest being a firefighter.

In an email shared with the Banner Graphic, Deputy Public Access Counselor Kristopher Cundiff stated that the non-verbal vote by the council did not constitute a secret ballot.

“With a secret ballot, there would be no way for the public to know how the individual council members voted on a particular measure,” Cundiff wrote. “That’s not the case here, because each council member signed their name next to their vote.”

However, Cundiff also provided that it would be “beneficial” in the future to ensure that a roll call vote is done, so that those attending a meeting can witness the “actual act of voting.”

Another recent Open Door Law discussion involved the aforementioned county council. The September meeting of the council also featured a public hearing regarding the 2020 county budget.

The problem was that through a clerical error, notice of the hearing — technically a meeting of its own — was not posted as part of the agenda.

After some discussion of this matter, it was determined that the law surrounding such public hearings is slightly different, and no violation occurred.

Regardless of this, Putnam County Auditor Lorie Hallett was frustrated by the oversight, indicating she plans to make separate postings of such public hearings in the future.

While in both cases, it at least appeared at one point that a violation might have occurred, the reactions of Galloway and Hallett seem to back up what Jernagan said during the Community Conversation.

“I think we have government officials here who really do care about this,” Jernagan said. “They want people to come and be involved.”

Comments
View 9 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • So are Jared and mr. Hanson lawyers for the state of indiana? If hanson gives advice.....and it's wrong can she be held liable as so jardigan? Anyone can read the handbook and become an expert on the open door law.

    -- Posted by canttakeitanymore on Wed, Oct 23, 2019, at 9:25 AM
  • *

    Don't be fooled: The League of Women Voters is a progressive advocacy group that supports more and bigger government, as well as align themselves with other progressive organizations (Brennan Center for Justice) that lie in order to effect change.

    Calling themselves "non-partisan" is a ploy designed to make them look neutral when they are anything but.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Wed, Oct 23, 2019, at 11:47 AM
  • Agree 100% dreadpirateroberts. If the people only knew

    -- Posted by canttakeitanymore on Wed, Oct 23, 2019, at 4:25 PM
  • Putnam County's website hasn't posted minutes from Commissioners or Council meetings for over a year. It even says the Council "specifications" don't allow public viewing of their minutes until 2 meetings have passed. Not sure if this follows the Open Door Law. And the Commissioners now hold all meetings at 9 AM when most working people can't attend.

    -- Posted by Ben Dover on Thu, Oct 24, 2019, at 10:01 AM
  • When do the League of Women (Only?) Voters meetings minutes post?

    Sound familiar? Shadow government types.

    No agenda there, move along citizen.

    -- Posted by direstraits on Thu, Oct 24, 2019, at 10:36 AM
  • *

    Ben Dover - good catch! And yes, they have always (as long as I am aware) held their meetings during the day when most people can't attend. Bad policy.

    DireStraits - If you want info on the League of Women Voters, including what they actually stand for (some of which I concur with reservations) I highly recommend you go to their website. You will have to do some digging and go down a few rabbit holes, but you can find out what they are about and who they affiliate with.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Thu, Oct 24, 2019, at 10:59 AM
  • I have found the same issue of not posting minutes for the City of Greencastle Common Council. I have not checked lately, but this summer they had only posted minutes through 2018. Maybe I am not looking in the correct location?

    -- Posted by 3m50 on Thu, Oct 24, 2019, at 12:27 PM
  • *

    I encourage everyone to push for open, limited government.

    This is one of the few things on which I agree with LWV: Sunshine laws are an absolute necessity for our system of government.

    Remember: They work for you.

    And in the old days bad administrators were literally tarred and feathered and ran out on a rail.

    If you don't hold them accountable, no one will.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Thu, Oct 24, 2019, at 1:17 PM
  • No problem with transparency/accountability

    Freedom of speech, heck yes

    Neutral/No agenda from LWV, not buying it.

    They deserve the same scrutiny they dish out. We can see the targets they choose to focus on or more to the point, not to focus on.

    Slanted local debate questions anyone? Who developed those?

    -- Posted by direstraits on Fri, Oct 25, 2019, at 12:51 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: