Published: September 19, 2009 10:41 pm      

Closed door meeting slap in the face of taxpayers

This past week, the Meridian City Council once again had a packed crowd for their regular board meeting. That's a good thing.

The bad part: right out of the gate, before any business could be done, officials voted to go behind closed doors and do the business of the public in private. At least this time they didn't herd the crowd out into the hall. At least this time residents were able to keep their seats. Still, was yet another closed meeting necessary?

We publicly opposed Tuesday’s closed meeting on two grounds.

First, we believe councilmen failed to follow the letter of the law in meeting behind closed doors. The reason given to the public for closing the meeting was to discuss "personnel matters" — one of the reasons state law allows public bodies to close meetings. But the law is more specific. Title 25, Chapter 41 of the state's Open Meetings Act says, "discussion of personnel matters relating to the job performance, character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of a person holding a specific position." The law does allow exemptions, but we believe the law is clear that they have to be more specific than blanket statements. Personnel matters related to what? The public deserves better.

The Supreme Court has stated that while a body shouldn't have to give specifics of the meeting, it must "disclose enough so that the audience can know in fact that there is some specific area (or) matter that the board has wisely concluded should, for the time being, be discussed in private."

Secondly, we believe public bodies — who are elected by the public they serve — should make every effort to do business in front of the public. The law's exemption was never intended to be abused. It should be the exception, not the rule. And the exceptions provided are not to be used to "circumvent or to defeat" the purpose of open meetings law.

The Supreme Court has also stated: "When a board chairman tells a citizen he may not hear the board discuss certain business, he is taking liberties with the rights of that citizen and the reason given for this interference must be genuine and meaningful, and one the citizen can understand."

Asking citizens to sit and wait while a board meets in private on a routine basis is a slap in the face of our nation's founders and our constitution. We are a free nation and our elected officials should remember that taxpayers deserve an open government. We understand some closed-door meetings are needed, but they should be rare and public bodies should be explicitly clear and deliberate about how they enter into such meetings.

The state's open meetings law is clear when it says: "It being essential to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government and to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner, and that citizens be advised of and be aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of Mississippi that the formation and determination of public policy is public business and shall be conducted at open meetings except as otherwise provided herein."

Those last five words are not meant to sidestep everything written before it. The exceptions also don't mean closed meetings are even necessary. The law goes on to say: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to require that any meeting be closed to the public, nor shall any executive session be used to circumvent or to defeat the purposes of this chapter."

We demand our elected officials to limit such meetings and make every effort to do the city's business in front of the people they serve.

In December 2008, we used this space to ask councilmen to do better in this regard; today, we demand it.