Neglecting The Law

Something is very wrong when elected officials, confronted by issues of concern to their constituents, retreat behind closed doors to make decisions. But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised when so many ordinary citizens believe laws are meant to be skirted when it is to their advantage.

As should be obvious, open meetings laws are designed to make sure that subjects that are controversial and situations that no one likes come to light. No laws are needed to guarantee the public's right to know good news.

Two South Fork school districts have, especially in recent months, fallen into the practice of violating state law, and both seem to have gone overboard in the last week when the future employment of their Superintendents was of widespread interest.

One of those districts is Amagansett, where the announced purpose of a special meeting and executive session was a far cry from what actually occurred, and where discussions among a majority of School Board members during a private party (!) may have changed the course of events. The other district is Bridgehampton, where board members managed to reach a consensus about the School Superintendent, whose contract ends in June, without any indication to the public that his job might be on the line.

In Amagansett, the board has been calling extra meetings at irregular intervals, making it difficult to keep track of goings-on. On Friday, board members reached a major decision about the District Superintendent that was totally unexpected by those outside their immediate circle. No effort was made to inform residents or the press that the agenda of the Friday meetings had been changed dramatically.

Bridgehampton habitually holds executive sessions prior to scheduled public meetings, although the law requires government bodies to call a public meeting and announce the particular subject of an intended executive session, and then to vote to go into such session before doing so.

When issues are routine and the public is content with the way an elected body is handling its responsibilities, no one is eager to fight over the letter of the law. Casual practices, however, can undermine good intentions and damage public confidence when real trouble begins.

Interested residents and/or the press can, of course, take legal action to force compliance with state law, although litigation obviously costs taxpayers money and can divide a community unnecessarily.

How much better it is for the public to apprise itself of its rights, and to demand that elected officials obey the letter, as well as the intent, of the law. And for elected officials to remember whom they serve.