On Tuesday March 4, the 2nd meeting of the "Community Engagement Task Force" was held. This group is chaired by MaryEllen Havel-Lang. School Board member Jim Carrel is also a member of the group.
The official notice to the public---which was only POSTED on the District website, not published in the STAR or journal--- is reprinted at right.
Does ANYONE have any idea what will actually be discussed at this meeting based on the agenda?? It really gives only a vague idea of what the end result of the Task Force will be, not what will be discussed/reviewed at this specific meeting.
The other --- private --- agenda.
---------------------------------
SP-EYE was able to obtain a copy of a DIFFERENT agenda, one that was apparently e-mailed to Task Force members and perhaps was in their "member packages". The bottom line is that this agenda---and who knows what other information---was NOT made available to the public. In fact....how would the public even know to ask for it? It is exactly those questions, and the concepts behind them, that resulted in the creation of Open Meetings Laws.
The Open Meetings Law Guide, which is available at www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf, says the following with respect to agenda:
"III. A. 2. Contents of notice
a. In general
Every public notice of a meeting must give the “time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.” Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2). The notice need not contain a detailed agenda, but because the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information compatible with the conduct of governmental business, the notice should be specific. This requires that when a member of the governmental body knows in advance of the time notice is given that a matter may come before the body, that matter must be described in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 143, 144 (1977). The chief presiding officer of the governmental body is responsible for providing notice, and when he or she is aware of matters which may come before the body, those matters must be included in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 68, 70 (1977). In an informal opinion, the Attorney General opined that a chief presiding officer may not avoid liability for a legally deficient meeting notice by assigning to a non-member of the body the responsibility to create and provide a notice that complies with Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2). Correspondence, October 17, 2001.
In formulating descriptions of the subject matter of a meeting, the chief presiding officer should keep in mind that the public is entitled to the best notice that can be given at the time the notice is prepared. A good rule of thumb is to ask whether a person interested in a specific subject would be aware, upon reading the meeting notice, that the subject might be discussed. "
HOUSEKEEPING???
The other --- private --- agenda.
---------------------------------
SP-EYE was able to obtain a copy of a DIFFERENT agenda, one that was apparently e-mailed to Task Force members and perhaps was in their "member packages". The bottom line is that this agenda---and who knows what other information---was NOT made available to the public. In fact....how would the public even know to ask for it? It is exactly those questions, and the concepts behind them, that resulted in the creation of Open Meetings Laws.
The Open Meetings Law Guide, which is available at www.doj.state.wi.us/AWP/OpenMeetings/2005-OML-GUIDE.pdf, says the following with respect to agenda:
"III. A. 2. Contents of notice
a. In general
Every public notice of a meeting must give the “time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof.” Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2). The notice need not contain a detailed agenda, but because the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information compatible with the conduct of governmental business, the notice should be specific. This requires that when a member of the governmental body knows in advance of the time notice is given that a matter may come before the body, that matter must be described in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 143, 144 (1977). The chief presiding officer of the governmental body is responsible for providing notice, and when he or she is aware of matters which may come before the body, those matters must be included in the meeting notice. 66 Op. Att’y Gen. 68, 70 (1977). In an informal opinion, the Attorney General opined that a chief presiding officer may not avoid liability for a legally deficient meeting notice by assigning to a non-member of the body the responsibility to create and provide a notice that complies with Wis. Stat. § 19.84(2). Correspondence, October 17, 2001.
In formulating descriptions of the subject matter of a meeting, the chief presiding officer should keep in mind that the public is entitled to the best notice that can be given at the time the notice is prepared. A good rule of thumb is to ask whether a person interested in a specific subject would be aware, upon reading the meeting notice, that the subject might be discussed. "
HOUSEKEEPING???
Note the the agenda item "Housekeeping" in the 2nd, private agenda. What resident could possibly hope to understand what actions may be taken under this heading? The Open Meetings Law Guide also addresses this issue further within the same paragraph:
" Governmental bodies may not use general subject matter designations such as "miscellaneous business," or "agenda revisions," or "such other matters as are authorized by law" as a justification to raise any subject, since those designations, standing alone, identify no subjects. Correspondence, November 30, 2004. The Attorney General advised in an informal opinion that if a meeting notice contains a general subject matter designation and a subject that was not specifically noticed comes up at the meeting, a governmental body should refrain from engaging in any information gathering or discussion or from taking any action that would deprive the public of information about the conduct of governmental business. I-05-93, April 26, 1993. "
What's happening here? What does this all mean? For one thing, SP-EYE finds it ironic that in holding a meeting designed, ostensibly, to engage the community, Havel-Lang has done something which, at the very least, could be termed deceptive practices. It's precisely these deceptive practices which have led to the distrust that many community residents hold for the School Board. One could even make a case that this situation constitutes a violation of Open Meetings laws. Sure, Carrel and Havel-Lang will say that it's a subcommittee, that the agenda was harmless, or that it was all an oversight....but haven't we heard this all before?
SP-EYE can't help but see the parallels between this situation and the tense courtroom scene in "A Few Good Men", where Tom Cruise's character asks Jack Nicholson's character: "Colonel...why the two sets of orders?"
Posts
