It appears the Garland Board of Commissioners needs a few lessons in when and when not to close a meeting.
For our part, transparency is always the key, but it seems in Garland, at least, transparency only applies when town board members are trying to one-up their colleagues, employees or even citizens who show up to discuss issues.
Last week’s regular meeting is a clear example.
Without an attorney present, the board, at the end of its Dec. 3 agenda, closed the meeting to the public without citing a reason to do so. The North Carolina Open Meetings Law, developed to protect the public from governing boards conducting public business in secret, stipulates that governing boards can go into closed session for very specific reasons, and those reasons must be stated. At the very least, the general statute must be cited before a board shuts the door to the public.
According to GS143-318.11, entitled Closed Sessions, it states: “A public body may hold a closed session only upon a motion duly made and adopted at an open meeting. Every motion to close a meeting shall cite one or more of the permissible purposes listed in subsection (a) of this section. A motion based on subdivision (a)(1) of this section shall also state the name or citation of the law that renders the information to be discussed privileged or confidential. A motion based on subdivision (a)(3) of this section shall identify the parties in each existing lawsuit concerning which the public body expects to receive advice during the closed session.”
That did not happen.
No statute was listed on the printed agenda, and board members did not cite one before shutting the door to the public for its discussion.
What’s more, at least one Garland commissioner told an Independent reporter that the commissioners should have never closed the meeting since, she said, the discussion was centered around whether town employees should be considered exempt or non-exempt.
If that, indeed, was the discussion, it wasn’t a reason to close the door to the public. When general employee discussions are on the table, the Open Meetings Law specifies there is no reason for a closed session. Again from GS143-318.11 (6), “General personnel policy issues may not be considered in a closed session.”
We believe a discussion on whether employees are exempt or non-exempt is not a legal reason to conduct a closed session based on the law, and,therefore, we believe the Garland Board of Commissioners violated its obligation to the public.
They did so earlier, as well, when three members of the board, prior to the meeting, were heard by an Independent reporter discussing town business. Three members of a five-member town board constitutes a quorum, and when that quorum talks town business it should be within the earshot of the public, not shrouded in a corner and done in whispered tones.
Whether the three members knew they were actually violating the law with that corner talk is unclear, but we are serving them notice now that it is, and business of that sort should not be transacted until the meeting is called to order.
While Garland is a small town, and unlikely to have the funds to hire an attorney to attend every meeting, it is advisable that commissioners learn, and follow, the N.C. Open Meetings Law or find the money to have an attorney there each time they meet to advise them when they step into those gray areas or simply over the line.
We take the public’s business very seriously and, therefore, work hard to ensure that all our governing boards here in Sampson adhere to the law, shutting the doors to the public only when it is absolutely necessary.
Individuals, generally, don’t understand the Open Meetings Laws any more than they do the laws about access to public records. It is our job to be their eyes and ears, ensuring that elected officials are as transparent as possible about what they do on behalf of taxpayers and citizens.
Garland has failed recently in that responsibility. We urge them to do a better job at being open. We will be watching.