Hold officials accountable

The recent editorial by Bill Stephan (July 15, "Brand misrepresented") is actually a case of mixing (Public Relations) spin with a slanted presentation of partial facts intended for nothing but disinformation. It's another example of the administration's open defiance to the public's right to know. \nStephan writes: "Facts: Although the Open Door Law allows public access to many meetings, certain matters remain confidential including 'discussions of (an) individual's status of an employee,'" IC 5-14-1.5-6.1(b)(6). "Any such discussions may be held in an executive session closed to the public. Even if the trustee gatherings on the morning of Sept. 9, 2000, were a meeting of the majority of the governing body (and they were not), those discussions would not have been open to the public. IU's only obligation under such circumstances would have been to post notice of an executive session."\nQuoting the Open Meetings Law, one perceives a different meaning: (IC 5-14-1.5-1): \n"Sec. 1. In enacting this chapter, the general assembly finds and declares that this state and its political subdivisions exist only to aid in the conduct of the business of the people of this state. It is the intent of this chapter that the official action of public agencies be conducted and taken openly, unless otherwise expressly provided by statute, in order that the people may be fully informed." "Official action" by all government agencies is to be conducted openly unless provided by law. IU's definition literally, and within its spirit, seeks to minimize the purpose of the law to fully inform the public.\nFact: IU didn't give notice for the "meeting of the Trustees," be it, 48 hours as required by law, or otherwise. In a sworn affidavit by Bob Knight, he attests that Brand told him "a meeting of the Trustees" was being held the morning of Sept. 9. Knight's sworn statement does not mention any executive session. What IU is conveniently trying to characterize is that even though they didn't give notice, the meeting would have been in executive session anyway. This is purely speculative thinking two years later.\nFact: In testimony by IU, it's clear "the meeting of the Trustees" of Sept. 9, 2000, involved a series of activities resulting in "official action" by IU. Legal precedents and the statute are specific where it provides for some confidential proceedings (i.e. IC 5-14-1.5-6.1 (6) With respect to any individual over whom the governing body has jurisdiction: (A) to receive information concerning the individual's alleged misconduct and (B) to discuss, before a determination, the individual's status as an employee). But after receiving information concerning Knight's alleged misconduct, IU continued conducting official business as defined in the law (IC 5-14-1.5-2. (c)).\n"Meeting" means a gathering of a majority of the governing body of a public agency for the purpose of taking official action upon public business (IC 5-14-1.5-2. (d)). "Official action" means to: (1) receive information, (2) deliberate, (3) make recommendations, (4) establish policy, (5) make decisions, (6) take final action. Evidently, IU did more than fail to give notice.\nPreviously, IU held that a majority wasn't present yet in fact there was a majority present, something IU admitted in testimony. Furthermore, Knight's personal services contract stipulates without exception that the only means by which he could be terminated without cause was through a majority vote of the Trustees. \nIU refutes the reports that in testimony, Brand stated IU regularly meets in small groups to avoid the Open Meetings Law. Unfortunately for IU, Brand did make that statement when he was responding to questions related to the unusual circumstances of Sept. 9, 2000. Stephan can only offer hearsay statements since he was not present. \nIU makes the claim that because House Bill 1738, sponsored by Rep. Mark Kruzan (D-Bloomington), failed to be taken out of Chairman Kruzan's Public Policy Committee for a vote on the floor, there is now a basis for legislative intent. Fact: Because the bill failed to become law does not mean it was defeated. "Defeated" has a legal meaning in the House. It means a Constitutional majority of those elected voted "no." No vote ever occurred. \nIn Nov. 2000, IU could have extricated from our lawsuit by admitting its mistake, promising never to do it again and paying less than $10,000 in attorney fees. To date, IU has spent over $125,000 on its attorneys alone. When we win, IU will have to pay our attorney fees too.