The public’s business must be conducted in public. That’s the law and it should be followed.

When it’s not, we — and the public for which we fight — should not tolerate it, knowing that those public matters discussed out of the earshot of citizens aren’t just illegal, they leave those discussing the public’s business without any responsibility for the actions that have been taken and the rest of us in the dark as to policy changes, funds spent, and a plethora of other very important matters.

We have waited patiently for the newly organized Clinton City Board of Education and its recently hired superintendent to understand that and to act accordingly.

The wait is now over. Our patience has been exhausted as has that, thankfully, of some of its board members. Now we must strongly urge other members of this board to return to the transparency we once applauded them for, a transparency demanded by the law and insisted upon by its citizens.

It should start, as board members Georgina Zeng and Dr. Stuart Blount urged at the last meeting, with conducting necessary closed-door sessions with an attorney present. That move, alone, should help board members stay focused on the things they can discuss behind closed doors, and those they can’t.

Dr. Wesley Johnson, a new superintendent we wholeheartedly support, should insist that be done under his watch, taking him out of the danger zone where board members could place him.

Without an attorney in the room, it is easy to slip into discussions that should be held in public and just as easily to make decisions that should be made in the open. Let’s face it, making tough decisions and voicing objections is easier on the stomach when no one outside of the board is listening.

But that’s not how it should be, and it’s a part of the job that all elected officials swear to abide by when they take office.

While we always give our boards the benefit of the doubt (until they give us reason not to) when it comes to lengthy closed-door meetings entered into for purported legal reasons, it is hard to swallow that repeated two, three and four hour meetings behind closed doors is necessary.

Clinton’s Board of Education has holed up in such meetings more often than not over the course of the last year or more. There just can’t be that many personnel issues and student problems to discuss. If there are, the city schools have far bigger problems than not wanting to pay to have a lawyer in the room when they close the meeting off to the public.

And that leads us to believe the board may be — whether intentionally or not so much so — circumventing the law occasionally. For what purposes, we are not sure, but we believe they aren’t for the good of the public nor the students the board serves.

And, if the long closed-door sessions weren’t enough to make us suspicious, Blount’s recent concerns about the board decisions being made through personal calls, conversations, emails or text messages certainly has piqued our interest.

He is correct in his assertion that “a consensus needs to occur in a public meeting,” and not in the shadow of emails, a text or a phone call. That is not an appropriate way to deal with the public’s business.

We applaud Blount, who, as a former superintendent, should know the NC Open Meetings Law cover to cover, and Zeng for standing up for what is right even though we are sure that will put them at odds with any other board member who prefers the veil of secrecy.

That veil should be lifted.

We know the Clinton City Board of Education members well, and respect them all individually. What’s more, using a cone of secrecy isn’t the way they’ve done business in the past.

We hope they will take Zeng’s and Blount’s lead and reconsider the way they do the public’s business, and we urge Johnson to help put them back on the path of openness they once traveled.

Any less cheats the public of its right to know.