Councilman believes failure to follow the law on public meetings lessens trust in government
By Jennifer Zartman Romano
Allegations that an illegal meeting was held by the Whitley County Council have been taken a step further as a South Whitley resident has allegedly filed a complaint with the Indiana Public Access Counselor's Office, one of several watch dog agencies created to ensure transparency in government.
The meeting was held July 28 regarding Whitko School Corporation's referendum and whether it would appear on the November ballot.
Per the law, a meeting was advertised and occurred as advertised at 8 a.m. that Wednesday morning. At that time, the council voted against putting the referendum regarding raising Whitko's tax rate on the November ballot.
According to councilman Jim Bayman, who attended and participated in the meeting, those present included council members Tom Western, John Barrett, Glen Larue and council president Kim Wheeler. Additionally, Whitko school superintendent Steve Clason was there along with Gene Heckman, Thorncreek Township trustee.
As we reported that week, Wheeler abstained from the vote, Western voted in favor of the referendum and Barrett, Larue and Bayman voted against the referendum. The meeting adjourned and those present departed.
A short while later, a call was made requesting the councilmen back to the chambers for another vote on the matter a second time. Bayman said he had turned his phone off, so he didn't receive that call. Wheeler, Western, Barrett and Larue returned to the chambers and cast their votes again. This time, Wheeler, Western and Barrett voted in favor of the referendum and Larue maintained his vote against the referendum.
"I don't see how that second meeting could be legal -- it wasn't advertised," Bayman said. "It's not a good way of conducting business."
Bayman was concerned that failing to follow the law when it comes to public meetings deceives the public and lessens trust in government.
"The public doesn't have a real good image of elected officials and then something like this happens," Bayman said.
Bayman said council members in Whitley County have been traditionally careful about being anywhere in groups numbering four or more because that could be construed as a meeting, even if no business is actually discussed. Knowingly creating a meeting of four members of council for the purpose of having a meeting, but not giving the required public notice, however, creates a lot of concern for Bayman and for others interested in keeping government honest and open. It also maybe a violation of the Indiana Sunshine Law.
According to the Indiana Sunshine Law, a meeting "is defined as a gathering of a majority of the governing body of a public agency for the purpose of taking official action upon public business. All meetings of the governing bodies of public agencies must be open at all times to permit members of the public to observe and record them."
Additionally, the Indiana Open Door Law says "Before a public meeting takes place, Indiana Open Door Laws, require a public notice of the date, time, and place of any meetings, executive sessions, or of any rescheduled or reconvened meeting, shall be given at least forty-eight (48) hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before the meeting. This requirement does not apply to reconvened meetings (not including executive sessions) where announcement of the date, time, and place of the reconvened meeting is made at the original meeting and recorded in the memorandum and minutes thereof, and there is no change in the agenda. Public agencies are also required to notify all news agencies who have requested notification of meetings."
The second meeting would not have been considered a "reconvening" because announcement of the reconvening was not made at the original meeting and public entities, including the media, were not notified of the second meeting.
Following the meeting, Bayman and others, including the South Whitley resident who filed the complaint, contacted a number of watchdog agencies about the apparent violation. It is now up to the Indiana Public Access Counselor's Office to determine how the issue will be handled and what priority will be assigned to situation.
Allegations that an illegal meeting was held by the Whitley County Council have been taken a step further as a South Whitley resident has allegedly filed a complaint with the Indiana Public Access Counselor's Office, one of several watch dog agencies created to ensure transparency in government.
The meeting was held July 28 regarding Whitko School Corporation's referendum and whether it would appear on the November ballot.
Per the law, a meeting was advertised and occurred as advertised at 8 a.m. that Wednesday morning. At that time, the council voted against putting the referendum regarding raising Whitko's tax rate on the November ballot.
According to councilman Jim Bayman, who attended and participated in the meeting, those present included council members Tom Western, John Barrett, Glen Larue and council president Kim Wheeler. Additionally, Whitko school superintendent Steve Clason was there along with Gene Heckman, Thorncreek Township trustee.
As we reported that week, Wheeler abstained from the vote, Western voted in favor of the referendum and Barrett, Larue and Bayman voted against the referendum. The meeting adjourned and those present departed.
A short while later, a call was made requesting the councilmen back to the chambers for another vote on the matter a second time. Bayman said he had turned his phone off, so he didn't receive that call. Wheeler, Western, Barrett and Larue returned to the chambers and cast their votes again. This time, Wheeler, Western and Barrett voted in favor of the referendum and Larue maintained his vote against the referendum.
"I don't see how that second meeting could be legal -- it wasn't advertised," Bayman said. "It's not a good way of conducting business."
Bayman was concerned that failing to follow the law when it comes to public meetings deceives the public and lessens trust in government.
"The public doesn't have a real good image of elected officials and then something like this happens," Bayman said.
Bayman said council members in Whitley County have been traditionally careful about being anywhere in groups numbering four or more because that could be construed as a meeting, even if no business is actually discussed. Knowingly creating a meeting of four members of council for the purpose of having a meeting, but not giving the required public notice, however, creates a lot of concern for Bayman and for others interested in keeping government honest and open. It also maybe a violation of the Indiana Sunshine Law.
According to the Indiana Sunshine Law, a meeting "is defined as a gathering of a majority of the governing body of a public agency for the purpose of taking official action upon public business. All meetings of the governing bodies of public agencies must be open at all times to permit members of the public to observe and record them."
Additionally, the Indiana Open Door Law says "Before a public meeting takes place, Indiana Open Door Laws, require a public notice of the date, time, and place of any meetings, executive sessions, or of any rescheduled or reconvened meeting, shall be given at least forty-eight (48) hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays) before the meeting. This requirement does not apply to reconvened meetings (not including executive sessions) where announcement of the date, time, and place of the reconvened meeting is made at the original meeting and recorded in the memorandum and minutes thereof, and there is no change in the agenda. Public agencies are also required to notify all news agencies who have requested notification of meetings."
The second meeting would not have been considered a "reconvening" because announcement of the reconvening was not made at the original meeting and public entities, including the media, were not notified of the second meeting.
Following the meeting, Bayman and others, including the South Whitley resident who filed the complaint, contacted a number of watchdog agencies about the apparent violation. It is now up to the Indiana Public Access Counselor's Office to determine how the issue will be handled and what priority will be assigned to situation.