The undying mystery: What happens behind the doors of closed session meetings?
Many reporters, myself included, have wished they could be a fly on the wall during a closed-session meeting. Not just because we’re curious, but because there’s something unsettling about public officials doing business in secret.
Of course, there are reasons it’s justified, like considering personnel matters, pending litigation or buying property. And there are measures in place to guide discussions and make sure that no unlawful activity takes place. So, we’ve got nothing to worry about, right?
Not exactly.
Case in point: The Journal Times’ years-long battle regarding a request from the Racine Police and Fire Commission over the record of a vote held in closed session.
The city initially denied a request from the newspaper for information about action taken during a February 2012 closed session meeting to deliberate over selecting a police chief. The paper requested they release who made and seconded a motion to review other applications received for the police chief’s post after one of three finalists—a white candidate from outside of the police department—withdrew from consideration leaving two internal candidates, both minorities.
Officials cited many illegitimate reasons they couldn’t release the information, finally settling on the argument that they couldn’t provide the requested documents because no such records existed. The open records law is in place to provide access to records, not information, they said.
Eventually—after the newspaper filed a lawsuit and the city hired one of the internal candidates—the information was released.
Last week, the state Supreme Court agreed to hear petitions filed by both parties to clarify the law on issues like this. The city argues that state law doesn’t address how quickly governmental bodies must record motions and roll call votes, and that it wasn’t until May 2012 that the vote was recorded on a document and those minutes were approved.
This is a scary concept and certainly a weak spot in our law. Under this argument, public officials can effectively do business in secret without creating any record of what happened for an undetermined period of time.
Even though the open meetings law requires governmental entities to record motions or roll call votes that take place during meetings, open or closed, that doesn’t always happen. And from the few years I spent in local government, I can attest that closed session minutes are strongly discouraged. Because if the exemption allowing for the meeting expires they might have to release those records, and some would rather there be no record at all, or at least a very minimal one.
And oftentimes, the devil is in the details. So even if the motions and votes are recorded, that doesn’t provide us with a picture of what happens in between. Improper activity isn’t just limited to motions and roll calls.
These are a few reasons why the Wisconsin Newspaper Association plans to make this issue its No. 1 priority in the upcoming legislative session.
We will push for a change to the statute that requires governmental bodies to keep verbatim records, either by video or audio recording, of each closed session meeting. These records would be confidential until no longer justified or if judicial review was needed because of suspected wrongdoing.
In the case The Journal Times, the record would’ve existed immediately without question. And for others suspected of misbehaving, there would be a clear record to help a judge make that determination.
Because if everyone is playing by the rules and adhering to the open meeting guidelines, what’s there to hide?
—-
Have you experienced improper roadblocks in trying to discern closed session activity? Contact me at (608) 283-7622 or Julia.Hunter@WNAnews.com.