Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 12, 1995 TAG: 9503100024
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: F-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: DAN CASEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
In general, the law requires meetings to be open. It never requires closed meetings. But the act recognizes 22 exemptions under which meetings may be closed.
On occasion, the General Assembly has tightened the law. It has added a provision requiring that officials certify by vote that a closed session was called for a legally-exempted reason and that nothing else was discussed.
But most of the legislature's actions on the law have broadened it. Seven exemptions allowing closed meetings have been added to the act.
Most executive sessions by elected bodies fall under four exemptions: discussion of appointments to various board and commissions or other personnel issues; talks concerning the use or sale of public property or purchases of private property; conferences on industries moving to a jurisdiction or expanding operations; and meetings to receive legal advice from a city, county or town attorney.
Roanoke City Council met privately 30 times last year to discuss which citizens should serve on boards and commissions. Mayor David Bowers requested all those closed-door talks, according to council minutes.
"We've always done it that way," Bowers said. "It was always done that way under Mayor [Noel] Taylor."
City lawmakers also defend the secrecy as necessary.
Their theory is that without the private meetings, a council member who strongly objects to a nominee would have to do it in public. That would be embarrassing for the individual involved and scare away other worthy volunteers.
Floyd County Supervisor Howard Dickerson said Floyd's county attorney advises the board to meet in public to avoid slander suits or other legal action by citizens who are rejected. Dickerson, who often votes against closing meetings, says he believes that rationale is bogus.
"I'm willing to state my views on why somebody should or should not be on a board - in public," Dickerson said. "Some people are uncomfortable with it."
Meetings to discuss prospective industries or business expansions are less frequent. The law allows the meetings to be closed only if there has been no prior announcement of the expansion.
Sometimes, businesses request that talks be private to avoid tipping off competitors. In other cases, it's because they're also negotiating with other governments, said Larry Linkous, chairman of the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors. They wait to see which one offers the biggest carrot in the form of tax abatements and promised services.
"Sometimes, they play localities against each other," he said.
"The best way to lose them would be to let it get out in the public," Dickerson said. But "in that instance, executive sessions work against the public's interests because they wouldn't know [about a new industry] until its too late."
Officials defend the exemption on real estate sales and purchases as a money-saver for taxpayers. If it was public knowledge that a jurisdiction would pay up to a certain amount for a parcel of land, a government could never buy it cheaper.
"If someone knows [in advance] you can afford to pay X amount of dollars for a piece of land, do you think you're going to pay anything less for it than that? Do you think the owner is going to take less than what you can afford?" Roanoke Councilwoman Linda Wyatt asked.
But Montgomery Supervisor Jim Moore said that logic makes little sense to him. Recently, the board very carefully met in private to discuss buying land before presenting the owner with an offer. He wanted a lot more.
"If the government wanted to buy a piece of property, wouldn't it be better off to have a little competition out there?" Moore asked.
Perhaps the ultimate potential catch-all exemption concerns legal matters. It was the most frequently cited reason for closed sessions by elected bodies in 1994.
Public officials may meet in private with staff or lawyers to discuss actual litigation, probable litigation or any other matter that may require legal advice.
Without exception, officials defend it as necessary.
"It's to avoid jeopardizing justice," Moore said.
But a freedom-of-information expert agreed the wording of the exemption seems to allow for private meetings almost any time there is a lawyer in the room.
"That's pretty all-inclusive," said Rebecca Daugherty, director of the Arlington-based Freedom of Information Service Center for the Reporters' Committee for the Freedom of the Press. "There are some states where if you're consulting a lawyer, it better be for actual litigation."
Roanoke City Attorney Wilburn Dibling said that apart from litigation, most of the "legal advice" he offers council is limited to contractual matters.
"Anything could be considered a legal matter if you give it a broad meaning. And I don't," he said.
by CNB