Conducting Public Affairs in the Daylight

If they gave an Oscar to the locality whose governing body voted to go behind closed doors the most times during 2009 to conduct public business, the Amherst County Board of Supervisors would win it handily.

According to an examination of public minutes for 2009 by The News & Advance, the Amherst supervisors met behind closed doors 79 percent of the time — or 19 times out the 24 regular meetings they held during the year. Their closest competitor was the Campbell County Board of Supervisors who met in closed session 59 percent of the time or 13 times in 22 meetings. The supervisors in Bedford County went behind closed doors the fewest number of times to conduct county business. That was eight closed sessions in 22 meetings or 36 percent of the time.

We raise these figures during Sunshine Week, a national initiative this week that calls attention to the importance of open government and the freedom of information.

Closed meetings are allowed under the state’s Freedom of Information Act, known as FOIA. Other states have similar acts, all of which are designed to make government more transparent to the people but at the same time give local governing bodies a chance to go behind closed doors if they think it’s appropriate for the conduct of public business.

Among the more obvious reasons for excluding the public from meetings are matters relating to the purchase of land where open talks could adversely affect bargaining positions, interviews with potential candidates for employment and talks regarding litigation or potential litigation.

The closed session has been described as a privilege or tool available for public officials to use on occasion. The law requires that for closed sessions to be legal, the governing body must take a recorded vote in open proceedings that identifies the subject matter, states the meeting’s purpose and makes specific reference to the exemption allowed under FOIA.

But governing bodies do not have to go behind closed doors to conduct public business. In fact, a policy statement introducing the FOIA says clearly, “The affairs of government are not intended to be conducted in an atmosphere of secrecy since at all times the public is to be the beneficiary of any action taken at any level of government.” Further, the policy states, “This chapter shall not be construed to discourage the free discussion by government officials or employees of public matters with the citizens of the Commonwealth.”

Experts in open-government law say that while closed sessions are legal, they should not become a habit, as has been the case in Amherst where two top county officials have been fired with little justification to the public in the past year. “Just because something can be discussed in closed session doesn’t mean it has to be,” said Megan Rhyne, executive director of the Virginia Coalition of Open Government.

Some localities, she said, “tend to go into closed session wherever legally permissible, though they don’t need to.” Elected officials in such localities must be afraid of keeping public business public.

With very few exceptions, the business conducted by local officials should be in public where every one has equal access to the matters being discussed and agreed upon. Governing bodies that repeatedly retreat behind closed doors to conduct public business give the clear impression they have something to hide from the public.

There should be no secrets in the conduct of government. The people’s business is public business and it should remain that way. Those elected officials who can’t subscribe to open government must leave their position, turning it over to someone who can.