Open government committee makes recommendations

The study committee looking at changes in the state's open meetings law has put together its list of recommendations for the legislature. Those recommendations include:

• Allowing private "executive sessions" when some matters are discussed, such as discipline or performance of an government employee - except those holding an elective office or appointed to an executive position.
• Private meetings would be authorized when the discussion involves the sale or purchase of property or strategy in negotiations with public employees.
• School boards would be specifically authorized to meet in secret when evaluating the performance of a school superintendent, and government-owned hospitals could meet behind closed doors to discuss "marketing strategies and strategic plans."
• Up to three members of a city council, county commission or other governing body would be allowed to meet privately and discuss anything they wish without violating the sunshine law. The current restriction is set at two public officials.

These recommendations undoubtedly weaken the current law and that's never a good thing when it comes to open government.

Allowing up to three members of a public body to discuss activities out of the public light is probably not a huge loss for transparency, as long as the number is still below a quorum.

However the provision to allow school boards to discuss reviews of superintendents needs to be axed. Especially in Nashville, where the director of schools wants almost unlimited authority to operate the district, this debate needs to take place in the open.

The ultimate problem with closed sessions is there is no control over what is discussed because the meeting is secret. There is no check on whether the public officials confine their discussions to the the subject at hand and stay within the boundaries of the law.

Perhaps what is needed is an Office of Public Proxy, a member of which would be required to be in all closed sessions. If the discussion veered away from the allowed topic, the Proxy could issue a warning, which would be a matter of public record, and, if the action continued, the Proxy would be required to report the discussion that took place and who was involved.

    - Jim Grinstead