From North Dakota's in-forum.com.
If you ever want to figure out why regular people get so ticked off with the behavior of elected officials, here's the perfect example.
It's all about a non-issue: Writing a letter of support from one governmental body to another. It just wasn't listed on the agenda as an action item for the meeting, so a community gadfly files an open meetings violation suit.
Now the state attorney general will begin a 17- to 23-week review process. Here's the kicker: Even if board members are found to have violated the open meetings laws, it doesn’t change, overrule or void any action.
There's absolutely no oversight provided. And no matter how anyone feels about the letter, yes, there are openness and fairness principles involved. That's why people get ticked off with unadvertised meetings and decisions shrouded in secrecy.
What a waste of time all around.
Open meetings laws at issue in investigation
Kelly Smith, The Forum
Published Friday, October 03, 2008
A week after the state attorney general decided that the Grand Forks School Board violated open meetings laws, the Fargo School Board is under review for a similar issue.
Fargo School Board members say their approval last week to draft a letter isn’t a big deal. But Fargo resident Dave Engebretson – who filed the complaint with the state – disagrees, arguing it’s more about the principle of government transparency.
“They do things without public input,” he said. “I’m hoping it stops; bottom line.”
School Board member Jim Johnson told other board members Sept. 23 that the city wanted the board’s support for the city’s Southside Flood Control Project.
Johnson made a motion during board reports directing administrators to draft a letter of support.
“We have at least four (school) buildings in the flood plain, so it makes sense for us to support the flood plan,” board President Dan Fremling said this week.
Board member John Strand expressed concern about taking action on an issue not listed on the board’s agenda.
“And that’s a big issue,” he said. “It’s a taxpayer issue, it’s a policy issue.”
A motion failed 5-3 to table the discussion.
Johnson clarified that the motion was for Superintendent Rick Buresh to draft a letter that could be approved at the Oct. 14 meeting. All eight board members present then approved the motion.
“We didn’t take any action to do anything,” Fremling said. Whether the board did anything wrong, he added: “Not a thing.”
“In this situation, you’re talking about drafting a letter,” Fremling said. “It’s ridiculous.”
For Engebretson, though, the issue is about principle. “It’s a poor excuse,” he said. “It’s not just a letter of support.”
He filed the complaint with the North Dakota attorney general Sept. 24, and contacted the Cass County attorney this week.
Engebretson, 50, has been a longtime vocal critic of Fargo public entities and is a frequent writer of letters to the editor in The Forum, advocating lower property taxes and special assessments. The insurance loss-prevention consultant has also twice run unsuccessfully for City Commission.
Engebretson worked on Strand’s School Board campaign this year and considers him a friend. He added, though, that he didn’t contact Strand until after he filed the complaint with the state – which Strand reaffirmed.
“I don’t go back and get somebody to write a letter to the editor,” Strand said in response to his connection with Engebretson.
Bismarck attorney Jack McDonald, who represents the North Dakota Newspaper Association, said it’s not illegal for public entities to add issues to their agendas to discuss or take action on. He said they aren’t required to publish agendas – just minutes.
Just months ago, though, a similar incident happened in Grand Forks when a complaint was filed against the School Board for discussing and acting on an issue – the reassignment of a principal – not listed in the agenda.
Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem wrote on Sept. 19 that the Grand Forks agenda “did not sufficiently describe the staff change contemplated and was, therefore, not in substantial compliance with (open meeting laws).”
As for the Fargo School Board, Liz Brocker of the state attorney general’s office said the assistant attorney general is in the beginning of what is typically a 17- to 23-week review process to examine information provided by the board.
Even if board members are found to have violated the open meetings laws, she said, it doesn’t change, overrule or void any action taken last week.
Strand said he hopes it shows transparency is necessary.
“I’m not criticizing my own board,” he said. “I hope we all are held vigil to doing our public business in the public day.”
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
A couple of recent "around town" observations:
1. I almost had a Hairgasizm when I saw that there were new windows on the ground floor of the Stockham building. Is this:
a. a genuine attempt to improve the building, nothing more, nothing less?
b. a sign that the building owner might also be able to pay its back taxes?
c. a sign that the building owner might not be able to pay its back taxes because it sunk all its spare cash into new windows?
d. like the "lipstick on a pig" efforts of the Chinese gov't to improve Beijing for the Olympics, part of the building owner's "I've been a great landlord" facade for any upcoming hearings related to the owner's lawsuit over its rejected plans to build the French (Freedom?) restaurant/strip club/gym?
e. Something else?
2. I'm glad to see the new sidewalks on Bridge St., but did you notice the large pile of dirt, concrete chunks, and other excavated debris from the old sidewalks (with some yellow caution tape flapping around it) that has been summarily dumped on the land where the Gateway Project would have stood? Has anybody who complained about the Gateway Project's desecration of precious Williamson parkland also complained about this? The weight of the debris alone could be enough to plunge through the primordial marsh-mat and down to the earth's core, where God only knows what kind of catastrophe could occur. I think I know the answer: it's Bridge Commission property, our hands are tied, there's nothing we can do about it, it only magically becomes psuedo-parkland when necessary to squash unfavored revitalization plans.
3. Has anyone else noticed that the canal has been dry, or near dry, for months now, despite ample rainfall? What up with this? What happens to the fish, frogs, and other wildlife when the canal drains to a trickle?
I can't answer 1 or 2, but for #3, I believe the canal was drained for up-stream repairs.
Post a Comment