|
It's right to act on concerns, wrong to disregard statutes
We've all heard that two wrongs don't make a right, but where is the adage that applies to one right and one wrong? Based on what we heard during county commissioners' called meeting Tuesday (Jan. 25), commissioners were probably correct to ask for some accountability from the Economic Development Commission.
But that doesn't mean their Jan. 12 closed session was right. Explaining their motivation two weeks later is helpful, but it doesn't make it OK.
We just don't believe that five commissioners, who have had their share of non-unanimous votes during the past two-plus years, could have been so united behind the most complex single motion we've heard in the past decade unless the discussion of the controversial move had already taken place.
It's disappointing to us to see a group that's been among the most open boards ever to lead Jackson County resort to secrecy and unilateral action in reigning in independent bodies and their leader. And it's ironic that the same commissioners who criticized town leaders in October for airing complaints in the newspaper, rather than directly to county leaders, would be the same ones who would seize EDC records without consulting the municipalities and institutions that joined with the county a dozen years ago to create the EDC.
We would hope that our elected leaders would deliberate and discuss serious matters like removing Tom McClure from county appointments, suspending participation in the EDC, dissolving a loan committee, and beginning an audit before voting on a motion that specified such actions. We believe they did discuss it – behind closed doors.
The Open Meetings Law spells out reasons why boards can go into closed session. Withdrawing from a joint economic initiative the county freely entered into with incorporated towns and institutions of higher education is not on that list. Neither is removing county appointees.
The intent of the Open Meetings Law is to allow citizens access to the workings of their government.
Tuesday's meeting answered a lot of questions, but much of that discussion could have been held two weeks ago. Very little conversation involved reinstated employee Tamera Crisp, and it seems to us that commissioners could have aired their concern and listed their reasons before taking action. The rationale for the closed session – that all the other issues were intertwined with discussion of an employee, Crisp – doesn't seem valid. Commissioners could and should have separated the issues.
Elected officials should operate from a presumption of openness, rather than providing only the information they are required to give out. We hope that's what they'll do from now on.
|
