More on the Sunshine Act and the Public’s Right to Know

As I have posted recently, Council Rock School Board’s adherence to provisions of the Sunshine Act occasionally is less than ideal.  At the October 15th meeting this matter of the Sunshine Act crept up again, this time in regards to notice given about an Executive Session.

As a principle, all meetings of School Board officials are considered public.  However, in recognition that certain items are of a particularly sensitive nature, the Sunshine Act does allow certain items to be discussed in private, away from the prying eyes of the public.  Examples include personnel matters, litigation, contract negotiations, purchase or lease of real property, or items of confidentiality.

However, it must be noted that in moving a meeting behind closed doors, the Board is making a decision to deny the public a chance to monitor what is discussed.  To assure the public that this denial of public scrutiny is being done justifiably, the reason for this private Executive Session must be given.

Council Rock’s solicitors have generally used a one- or two-word reason for the session, just saying it was for reasons of “litigation” or “personnel matters.”  However, this kind of general term is insufficiently detailed for the public to be kept properly informed.  This point is backed up by the Pennsylvania School Board’s document “Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Law – a guide for public school boards.”

Why should the public care?  Well, as a recent example, the issue of extending the teachers’ contract for a year was largely sprung on the public with virtually no advanced notice.  There had been no information that the Board and Administration were even considering it, much less negotiating it. Had the public known, perhaps there would have been more upfront opportunity to question whether it was in the District’s best interests, to question what benefits were being negotiated away and to confront Board members earlier before this contract extension was revealed shortly before the Board voted to approve it.

The use of an unspecific description such as “personnel matters” occurred again at the October 15th meeting.  Since no action or vote was about to be taken based on that, I did not interrupt the meeting for this perceived violation. However, I pointed it out during the second round of public comment that this type of description was not sufficiently detailed as required. Although it is the solicitor who announces the reason for an Executive Session, the solicitor works for the Board and therefore it is in their power to direct him to properly advise the public.  I read excerpts from the PSBA document and stressed the need for them to direct the solicitor to make pronouncements which comply with the intent of the Sunshine Act.

This isn’t a Board policy which they can choose to follow.  This is the law.  And the Board cannot take lightly the rights of the public.

Here is an excerpt from the PSBA document clearly addressing this (the underlining and ellipsis is in the document, not added by me), discussing a ruling by the Commonwealth Court in the case of The Reading Eagle v. Council of the City of Reading:

However the public does have a right to know what matter is being addressed in those sessions. To decide how much the public is entitled to know about litigation or personnel or real estate, the court relied on Hinds County Board of Supervisors v. Common Cause of Mississippi, 551 So. 2,d 107 (Miss. 1989). In that case, the Supreme Court of Mississippi noted that specificity was necessary because:

“The reason given, of course, must be meaningful. It must be more than some generalized term which in reality tells the public nothing. To simply say ‘personnel matters’ or ‘litigation’ tells nothing. The reason stated must be of sufficient specificity to inform those present that there is, in reality, a specific, discrete matter or area which the board had determined should be discussed in an executive session….When a board chairman tells a citizen he may not hear the board discuss certain business, he is taking liberties with the rights of that citizen, and the reason given for citizen can understand. To permit generalized fluff would frustrate the very purposes of the Act.”

Commonwealth Court then determined that the General Assembly intended that the public be able to determine, from the reason given, whether they are being properly excluded from executive sessions and concluded that the reasons must be specific, indicating a real, discrete matter that is best addressed in private.

Let’s see if this changes from now on.