Elected officials are entrusted with conducting the business of their constituents and acting in the best interests of those they represent. To that end, the general public has a right to know what official actions their board and committee members are taking, which is why those entities operate under specific rules of order, take minutes, and adhere to many levels of law. Since elected officials technically work for the voters, their agendas, their discussions and their votes should all be easily accessible for public consumption.
Exceptions exist, of course, for discussion of sensitive issues such as real estate negotiations, hiring and firing, and other personnel concerns. Sometimes the elected body needs to be able to openly discuss a matter without having to be concerned about sensitive or personal information being made public, and that’s when executive sessions are used.
When a vote is taken, however ”“ whether it’s following an executive session or not ”“ the public should be informed as to what the vote is about. Some of the details may remain private if it involves a matter that is protected by law from being a public record, but the vote itself should be clear. That’s common sense for a board that is accountable to the public.
That was not the case on July 2, however, when the York County Commissioners took a unanimous vote to “adopt a course of action recommended by the county manager.” The public was not given any indication as to what that course of action might entail, nor to what situation it responded.
Due to the diligence of county reporter Tammy Wells, the Journal Tribune believes the vote was in regards to the employment of York County Emergency Management Agency Director Leo Rogers, who has been on paid administrative leave since May 13. No public record exists to confirm this presumption, however; anyone who was not present at the site of the meeting to see Rogers leaving the building after the executive session would have no idea based on minutes from the public portion of the meeting.
It is concerning that county attorney Tim O’Brien would advise the commissioners to proceed in such a way and withhold the basis for this vote from the public. O’Brien said he based his advice to the board on his consideration of the Maine Freedom of Access law and the county records section of Maine Title 30-A, which holds disciplinary records confidential until a final decision is rendered.
He also said that the Maine Freedom of Access Act clarifies that certain records are deemed confidential by statute, except for a final written decision on discipline.
We don’t disagree, and we’re not asking for the records at this time.
What we’re asking for, and what the public deserves, is a new vote that clarifies the basic action the board is voting to take.
There is no excuse for taking a vote without stating the nature of the vote; the people have a right to know what their county board is deciding to do.
Maine Press Association attorney Michael Mahoney said the board’s “final action must include enough detail so that the public is at least aware of what the subject matter discussed in executive session was.”
Voting to simply follow the undisclosed plan of action suggested by the county manager is not good enough. County Manager Greg Zinser has said a written decision will be issued and made public, but no date has been given for that to happen. In the meantime, the public will still be left with a secretive, vague vote on who-knows-what from July 2, and that is a violation of the public’s right to know.
We are calling on the county commissioners to clear the air and repair public confidence in their governance by taking a new vote that clarifies the action upon which they agreed on July 2.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski on behalf of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
