The public has a right to know

Editor’s note: Originally published Feb. 8, 1968

Suppose that the local city council is scheduled to meet on the first Thursday night of each month, but that when the press arrived for the meeting, it was found that the meet postponed to another date — without notification to the public through the news media.

And, now, suppose that the local school board is asked to establish a policy that the law says is left to the responsibility of the individual school boards, but suppose that the board members discuss the matter privately without bringing it up in a public meeting.

In both these instances, the two elected bodies apparently would have been breaking the law.

That’s because the General Assembly in 1967 passed Act No. 93, commonly known as the “Freedom of Information” act. It represents one of the finest stands that has been made in this state to protect the public.

There are 10 sections to the Act, and the two that would make the above suppositions illegal are Section 5 (Open Public Meetings) and Section 2 (Declaration of Public Policy).

Among the definitions of Section 5 is this: “In the event of emergency, or special, meetings the person calling such a meeting shall notify the representatives of the newspapers, radio stations and television station, if any, located in the county in which the meeting is to be held and which have requested to be so notified of such emergency of special meetings of the time, place and date at least two hours before such a meeting takes place in order that the public shall have representatives at the meeting.”

It should be noted here that it has been made clear by this publication that it is interested in reporting in person all meetings of both the Pea Ridge City Council and School Board and will do so, if those meetings are made known as to time and date.

Going farther on this same section of the law, it says: “Except otherwise specifically provided by law, all meetings formal or informal, special or regular, of the governing bodies of all municipalities, counties, townships and school districts, and all board, bureaus, commissions or organizations of the State of Arkansas, except Grand Juries, supported wholly or in part by public funds, or expending public funds, shall be made public meetings…”

The law does say that executive sessions are permissible if, and only if, they are for the purpose “of discussing or considering employment appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining or resignation of any public officer or employee…” but, says the law, “no resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation or motion considered or arrived at in executive session will be legal unless following the executive session, the public reconvenes in public session and presents and votes on such resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation or motion.”

In other words, if such a body changes its meeting date and does not notify the people’s representative (the press), then whatever action is taken at that meeting is not legal and would not stand up in court.

Apparently the lawmaking body of Arkansas wanted no more of the public business handled by private telephone conversations or over coffee cups in someone’s restaurant or home, for they included this definition on Section 2, “Declaration of public policy. It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the electors shall be advised of the performances of public officials and of the decisions that are reached in public activity and in making public policy. Toward this end, this act is adopted, making it possible for them, or their representatives, to learn and to report fully the activities of their public officials.”

One good that comes from this part of the law is that if policy affecting the public is decided upon outside of a formal meeting, the chances are that one member of the group might tend to dominate the others with his opinion. If the question is presented for vote in an open meeting, then weaker members at least could vote on the matter. And, of course, the fact that the public should be represented by more than one person is one reason why boards and councils dealing with public money and property (including children) must have several members. Otherwise, there would be no need to elect but one. To be continued.

••• Editor’s note: Earle and Billie Jines were the publisher and editor of the Pea Ridge newspaper from 19471975. Mrs. Jines wrote this editorial to be published annually.