Some openness would’ve been nice

It’s legal.
But that doesn’t mean it makes sense or is the public’s best interest.
Not so long ago, Indiana’s open meetings law required that when a school board faced a vacancy and had to select a new board member, the process was done in public.
Folks submitted their names as candidates, they were interviewed in open session by the board and a vote was taken.
That’s not much different from folks running for school board, submitting to questionnaires from the press, attending public forums and letting the electorate decide.
But that was then.
Somewhere along the line, changes were made to the open meetings law creating an additional exception for executive sessions, one that allowed the board to meet in private to “consider” candidates for political appointment.
So what the Jay School Board is doing is completely legal. But it’s still not in the best interest of the public.
Board members have already met once in executive session to “consider” the five people who have put their names forward to fill the vacancy created with the resignation of Mike Masters. They’ll meet again in executive session for another go-around on the same topic Monday.
Then they’ll meet in public session and take a vote.
Did they reach a consensus in their closed session? Probably. Did board members get a feel for how their counterparts felt about the different applicants? Sure.
Every executive session of every public body is only as good as the people participating. If there’s too much consensus, the process is opaque, everyone leaves the private session knowing the final outcome. Things come to light only when dissident board members complain or leak information.
It’s government operating smoothly for those in charge, but it shortchanges the public, the very people who are supposed to be being served.
Wouldn’t it have been more useful to have the board publicly interview the five candidates, asking questions about their experience, their motivation, any axes they might have to grind? Wouldn’t it have made more sense, given the school corporation’s financial stress, to quiz them on their priorities when it comes to critical issues like closing schools?
And wouldn’t any board member selected via such a process gain a measure of credibility having answered those questions?
The answers are yes, yes and yes.
But that’s not what is going to happen.
And it is perfectly legal.
But perfectly legal is not the same as right. — J.R.