The Monroe City Council met in closed, special session for about an hour last Wednesday evening. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss "possible violations of city policies by employees."
When the meeting was over, participants left council chambers without answering any questions. Aldermen who remained in the meeting room closed the door on a Times reporter - probably not something public officials should do in a public building after a legal meeting has officially concluded. Depending on the number of people remaining in the room, any conversation about the meeting subject could constitute an illegal meeting.
As one could guess, rumors have been flying around Monroe about what the council was discussing. It is neither the council's fault that this is occurring, nor its obligation to inform the public at this point. In fact, aldermen and city employees are doing a very good job at the moment of keeping private what by law should be kept private.
But there will come a time, after the resolution of the situation the council is discussing, that aldermen must let the public know what happened - at least in general terms - and how and why it reached the decisions it did. The public must be privy to information about the process, so it can determine whether all parties involved were treated fairly.
The state's Open Meetings Law allows the city to conduct this business in private for the time being.
The discussion of "possible violations of city policies," whatever they may be, certainly seems to be covered by state-listed exceptions to open meetings. It's a personnel matter in which a person's, or persons', employment status with the city may be in question. It also could be a matter that results in future litigation involving the city. State law allows those kinds of matters to be discussed behind closed doors.
Once in closed session, meeting participants only can take action on a matter if doing so is provided for in the meeting's agenda. In the case of Wednesday's meeting, no potential action by the Monroe City Council was listed on the agenda. And to date there have been no more meetings scheduled on the matter.
If and when an action is taken in closed session on this matter, a vote can be taken behind closed doors. But the state's Open Meetings laws require that all motions and roll call votes be recorded, preserved and open to public inspection.
Which means that if anything happens as a result of this or other closed meetings, the public has a right to know about it, and how aldermen voted. The city has an obligation to share some information.
Hopefully, the city will willingly comply.
When the meeting was over, participants left council chambers without answering any questions. Aldermen who remained in the meeting room closed the door on a Times reporter - probably not something public officials should do in a public building after a legal meeting has officially concluded. Depending on the number of people remaining in the room, any conversation about the meeting subject could constitute an illegal meeting.
As one could guess, rumors have been flying around Monroe about what the council was discussing. It is neither the council's fault that this is occurring, nor its obligation to inform the public at this point. In fact, aldermen and city employees are doing a very good job at the moment of keeping private what by law should be kept private.
But there will come a time, after the resolution of the situation the council is discussing, that aldermen must let the public know what happened - at least in general terms - and how and why it reached the decisions it did. The public must be privy to information about the process, so it can determine whether all parties involved were treated fairly.
The state's Open Meetings Law allows the city to conduct this business in private for the time being.
The discussion of "possible violations of city policies," whatever they may be, certainly seems to be covered by state-listed exceptions to open meetings. It's a personnel matter in which a person's, or persons', employment status with the city may be in question. It also could be a matter that results in future litigation involving the city. State law allows those kinds of matters to be discussed behind closed doors.
Once in closed session, meeting participants only can take action on a matter if doing so is provided for in the meeting's agenda. In the case of Wednesday's meeting, no potential action by the Monroe City Council was listed on the agenda. And to date there have been no more meetings scheduled on the matter.
If and when an action is taken in closed session on this matter, a vote can be taken behind closed doors. But the state's Open Meetings laws require that all motions and roll call votes be recorded, preserved and open to public inspection.
Which means that if anything happens as a result of this or other closed meetings, the public has a right to know about it, and how aldermen voted. The city has an obligation to share some information.
Hopefully, the city will willingly comply.
