Probe these closed sessions

Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Deseret Morning News editorial

Few statutes on Utah's law books protect the public as well as the Open Meetings Act. At least in theory.
The truth is many Utah governments, especially school boards, seem to have little idea what the law is about. That much was demonstrated convincingly last summer when the state's legislative auditor general released an audit that showed some school boards close meetings frequently and inappropriately.
It has been demonstrated again by the Jordan School District, which apparently decided to hold recent discussions about a budgetary matter concerning security officers in private. Board members apparently were relying on a section of the law that allows closed meetings to discuss "the deployment of security personnel, devices and systems." But that is a section that obviously refers to actual security details, not a decision over whether it would be better to hire a private security firm rather than continue to rely on school resource officers at a higher cost.
A spokesman for the Utah Attorney General's Office said Tuesday that officials are studying whether to formally investigate this matter. We urge them to do so. Some governments in Utah are not going to begin taking the Open Meetings Act seriously until it is clear they will be held accountable for violating it.
Significantly, a group of parents in Bountiful recently won a temporary restraining order against a Boundary Advisory Committee of the Davis District, which was holding meetings in secret to discuss new high school boundaries.
Open Meetings Act issues tend to be fairly clear-cut. But the public must rely on the courts, the attorney general or the media to enforce them. That's because the law itself includes no penalties for violation. The worst that can happen is that the body that took an action privately would have to do it again in public and then suffer public ridicule for a day or two.
The consequences to the public, however, are much greater. The law exists to make sure important public decisions are deliberated in public, giving everyone an idea as to how and why decisions are reached. Sometimes, those deliberations can be delicate or even embarrassing. But those considerations do not outweigh the public's interests.
The law contains exceptions for a very few considerations that would actually harm the government or individuals whose personnel matters are being discussed. But decisions about whether to spend money outsourcing security clearly belong in that vast array of things about which the public requires accountability.