Fixing a hole

Like all relatively beneficial things -- your car, let's say -- legislation aimed to be good sometimes is in need of a tune up. Despite the public good already performed by the laws on the books, the law's corners will occasionally unravel and groups can easily exploit the loose ends in ways never intended when the legislation was approved. \nA stellar example of such a need for a tune up comes in the form of the state's Open Door Law. The law, which defines what is and what is not a public meeting, basically establishes that government or state university officials, such as those at IU, must open their doors to the public when they have a quorum, or a majority of voting members.\nThe Indiana General Assembly could soon consider a common sense bill, sponsored by state Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, that would smartly plug the holes regarding quorums in the Open Door Law. If approved, her bill would invalidate actions performed behind closed doors when they ought to be open.\nAs IU students, we've taken particular interest in this bill for a particular reason: the IU board of trustees. \nWater began to drip through the cracks of the Open Door Law in the fall of 2000, when former IU President Myles Brand was becoming more disenchanted with former IU basketball coach Bob Knight. During a football game weekend, Brand asked the trustees to stop by Bryan House and chat with him. \nAccording to an Indiana Daily Student article, Brand testified later that he knew of the state's Open Door Law, and he knew a deliberate meeting with five or more trustees without a public announcement would skirt the law. He sought advice from the University's attorney and then admitted under oath that he instructed the trustees to come in two separate groups "to exclude any impropriety with respect" to the law.\nIU and the trustees continue to insist that the state's Open Door Law was not violated during these consecutive meetings specifically because the meetings lacked a quorum. It seems to us, however, that if the law was technically not broken, then certainly the spirit of the law was broken. \nObviously, we're not trying to regulate everything public bodies do behind closed doors. Provisions of the Open Door Law allow for private meetings with advanced notice, and certainly public bodies shouldn't feel the need to announce a public meeting two days in advance if all they're going to do is, hypothetically, talk about where to get lunch.\nBut rather than allow the state's judicial branch to make that call and possibly set an unwelcoming precedent, the state legislature should act swiftly and say what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. They must clarify what they meant when they said "open doors," and they should not hasten to pass this bill.