Speaking up for open meetings, transparency

Kudos to El Dorado Advertising and Promotion Commissioner Barbie Luther. She wielded the word like a true pen and sword champion. Advocates of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act typically are journalists but we love it when a community volunteer chimes in. Those voices pack punch because it is not perceived as some meddling reporter nosing Into city business — AKA the tax-paying people’s business.

A couple of weeks ago Luther said she would not seek another term if the commission continued to vote via email on issues it considers. News-Times reporter Tia Lyons covered the meeting and said that Luther brought up the issues as the group recorded into the minutes an email vote that was taken last month on an unexpected funding proposal.

The commission changed its regular meeting schedule and now meets every other month, with the exception of January and February when the commissioners meet successively to review and vote on requests for proposals that are submitted for the year. Issues that are time-sensitive and arise between meetings are voted on by email.

“Several times since that change (of the regular-meeting schedule), funding requests have been voted on by email. I believe this violates the open-meetings laws,” Luther said in Lyons’ story, adding that other organizations around the state have been cited about such activity by the news media.

Lyons did her homework. She contacted the Arkansas Press Association’s Arkansas Freedom of Information Act hotline and learned that the News-Times being copied on the email correspondence involving the voted fulfilled the FOIA requirements for media notifications.

But she also learned that the public was not provided with the opportunity to observe the commission conduct its business, which falls out of compliance with FOIA.

Here’s what else Lyons discovered by calling the hotline: “virtual” meetings convened by phone or the Internet are legal if conducted properly; and such meetings must be scheduled with proper notice and include “some means of safeguarding the public’s right to hear or monitor the telephone conversation or the electronic discussion, e.g., by use of speaker phones or by logging on to the computer network.”

The public has a right to know about and attend government meetings, regardless of the format in which they are conducted. Most office holders and appointees have been around long enough to be familiar with open meetings requirements. Luther knew the recent meeting and some in the past did not meet FOIA requirements. She pointed it out in a public forum and essentially said she wanted no part of it if that was how business was going to be conducted. Thank you for speaking up for what is right.

John Tull, general counsel to the Arkansas Press Association, told Lyons that a “virtual” meeting can satisfy Arkansas law but those who engage in them should take precautions.

“In theory, ‘virtual’ meetings can be held in compliance with the Arkansas FOIA on the condition that the requirement regarding notice and public attendance opportunities are satisfied, but the practice is unorthodox and fraught with potential problems,” he advised.

Fraught with potential problems, indeed. These issues have arisen locally in the past and will keep reoccurring as long as those who participate — and the public and prosecutors — are tolerant.

The press association offers a downloadable version for the FOI Handbook for anyone who needs a refresher: http://www.arkansaspress.org/?page=foihandbook. Get acquainted.

Again, kudos to Luther for being open and forthright.