Public information.
In the context of a board discussion about an upcoming 6-month evaluation of the town manager, the previous posting referred to laws that facilitate the public's access to information that is about us, or is relevant to us, but that is not always available to us as citizens and taxpayers.
At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act, passed in 1966, provides guidelines and directions for federal agencies to maintain records, and make them available to the public under certain circumstances.
Also at the federal level, in 1974, the Privacy Acts Amendments were to allow individual citizens to see records about themselves from federal investigative agencies, e.g., FBI, US Customs & Border Protection, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives.
Maine's Freedom of Access Act, passed in 1975, covers access to both public proceedings and public records. The law is often called the "Right-to-Know Law." It indicates that public proceedings exist to aid in conducting the public's business; that, in public proceedings (e.g., a town's selectboard or council meeting), actions are to be taken openly; that records are to be open to inspection; and that deliberations are to be conducted, for the most part, openly.
[editor's note: TPR refers readers to Findlaw.com as well as Wikipedia.org for more information on the 3 laws referred to here.]
These laws exist to protect the right of individuals to have access to information that can affect their lives. There are things that people need to know and understand directly. One of the costs of having someone else tell us what we "need to know" is that we become subject to someone else's agenda.
Concerning the FOAA, there are exceptions to "conducted openly," and they come in section 405, Executive Sessions. There are certain categories of discussion that are considered sensitive and are allowed to be held away from the public. The discussions are circumscribed however, to minimize keeping things secret from the public.
For example, discussions of sensitive personnel matters that could damage a person's reputation could be handled in executive session; but, any kind of action following such discussions can only be handled in open session.
At the 8-09-10 selectboard meeting there was mention of an evaluation form to be filled out by each board member in preparation for this evaluation of the town manager. The question was asked: can information placed on each individual form be shared with the other board members ahead of time? In other words, to be sure everyone is "on the same page," can there be a private discussion among board members before the conversation with the town manager?
It might well be that, when a group of people is evaluating one person, there is a need to have a private, fact gathering discussion outside the presence of the person to be evaluated. To make that logistically possible, a meeting without the manager and the public may have to take place.
Red flag:
* An executive session announced to discuss the manager's contract, and an immediate demand for another executive session to prepare for it.
There may well be a world of difference in the actual evaluation in this upcoming session vs the "evaluation" S. Jackson received 6-22-09. But a week ago, 8-09-10, in that room, more than one person squirmed.
Think about this: how would we know if there was something going on with an employee hired by officials we have elected? How can we be certain we are being told the whole story? If all discussion occurs in executive session, and we see only the results, how are we going to learn the whole truth? How do we know, and how do we learn, to trust?
There is a long way to go before there are enough trusting citizens in the town of Paris who are going to swallow explanations given by any board member just quoting laws - or before board members receive an automatic benefit of the doubt on important issues.
Trust is earned by actions, not words alone. And it is in short supply, if board members look around at - and listen to - many of the people who put them in office.
It is not a successful ploy to quote laws ad nauseam.
A minority of board members listen for the question behind the question - not just the part that can be used for pontificating or bullying.
Others need to watch and learn.
