|
|
Editorials - 02/06/03Public officials should accept law, operate openly |
|
Just when newspapers across the state thought the courts had settled the matter of what ex-actly public bodies are required to reveal before they use a closed session to discuss real estate, our local school board has determined the court ruling doesn't apply to them.
In an August ruling by the N.C. Court of Appeals in Boney v. City of Burlington, judges upheld the finding of the trial court that the defendants (Burlington) had violated the N.C. Open Meetings Law by deliberating a proposed land acquisition in closed session without first revealing the property's location and intended use. When North Carolina's Supreme Court declined to hear the City of Burlington's appeal, journalists across the Tar Heel State assumed that was the end of the matter. "Where the identity of the owner, the location and the intended use were not issues to be negotiated, the (public body has) an obligation to disclose that information," wrote attorney Amanda Martin in the N.C. Press Association's newsletter last month. With regard to the school board's Jan. 25 closed session, it seems likely that parcels near or adjoining Smoky Mountain High were the topic of closed-door conversation. We arrived at that conclusion based on the fact that the architects overseeing extensive renovations at SMHS were present at the school board meeting, though they were not listed on the agenda. When asked the same questions two weeks ago, Commissioners' Chairman Stacy Buchanan readily revealed the location and intended use of a parcel county commissioners intended to discuss in closed session. We appreciated that and were hopeful that all our county public bodies would be as cooperative. Most elected boards and their attorneys appear to believe the court's ruling is a bad one and will potentially harm towns, counties and school boards by forcing officials to reveal their interest in a parcel before negotiations are completed, thus inflating the price and costing taxpayers in the long run. Maybe they're right, but we believe the public's right to have as much knowledge as the law allows outweighs any potential harm. By refusing to follow existing law, school officials have turned a routine matter into a headline. Those who own property next to schools, especially those near over-crowded campuses like SMHS, surely suspect the school will one day have an interest in their property. Commissioners, municipalities and school boards all have state organizations that can lobby against the current statute and attempt to get the General Assembly to rewrite that portion of the Open Meetings Law. But unless such an effort is successful, public officials are stuck with the current law as written and interpreted, and we wish they'd follow it. |
Back to Archive: 02/06/03. |