How We See It: School Boards Don't Need Threats Of Felonies

It will come as no surprise this newspaper and journalists in general support the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act and the legal guarantees it established to give the public access to governmental decision-making processes and to many of the records maintained on their behalf by government authorities.

The public's business needs to be conducted in public.

Our support for the FOIA, as it's sometimes called, includes a part that allows closed-door meetings for specific circumstances. "Executive sessions will be permitted only for the purpose of considering employment, appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining, or resignation of any public officer or employee."

Granted, that exemption can at times be frustrating, because it allows public officials an opportunity to attempt to sweep away conduct by public officers or employees they find embarrassing. But in the day-to-day business of operating public agencies, it makes sense that there should be a mechanism for limited private discussions between a board and the people it supervises.

Unfortunately, some public officials want executive sessions to provide a bigger umbrella for secrecy than the Legislature intended. Over the years, some have wanted them to provide cover for almost anything that causes embarrassment, controversy or discomfort. There is no legal executive session for those conditions.

Recently, we were shocked to hear the attorney for the Bentonville School Board advising his board members any of them could be prosecuted on a felony charge if they revealed any information discussed during an executive session. This is an exaggeration almost tantamount to saying one could be executed for stealing a loaf of bread.

Attorney Marshall Ney was dead wrong, and just fell in line with the Arkansas School Boards Association in trying to create an atmosphere of secrecy within the ranks of school board members.

Nobody has been able to cite a single case in which a prosecutor even attempted to file such a charge against a school board member, and plenty of good attorneys consider it a stretch of credibility to suggest any reasonable prosecutor would twist the law to that end.

Let's also keep in mind that under Arkansas law, no government board, council or commission is ever required to enter executive session, even for the reasons they're allowed to. It is entirely the option of each panel's membership whether to enter a closed session. So conceivably, anything discussed inside the executive session could be discussed outside that session unless some other law (such as invasion of an employees privacy) applied to prevent it. Certainly, Ney's interpretation of felonious conduct doesn't.It's no coincidence this stern warning comes right after a contentious Bentonville School Board process of evaluating the superintendent. Secrecy covered up internal politics until one board member publicly declared the process "corrupted" and complained of being manipulated. Sometimes, it takes sunshine to ward off the darkness.As a rule, members of public bodies should respect the boundaries of executive sessions. But if a school board member, alderman or Quorum Court member feels compelled to reveal material in furthering the public interest, who reasonably would suggest that should be a crime, and particularly a felony?School board members don't need to be threatened with felonies for doing their jobs. And sometimes that involves raising questions other members of the board or administrators would rather not hear or have to respond to in public. For anyone made uncomfortable by that, here's our recommendation: Go back to private life.