Atty Gen'l slaps hand of NR school board
Responding to a complaint to the Wisconsin Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General Alan Lee slapped the hand of the New Richmond School Board in its reason for going into closed sessions. Lee found that the Board did not comport to the requirements of section 19.85(1) [closed meeting law].
Lee said that the board’s notice of subjects to be considered in closed session should be as specific as possible without compromising the reason for the closed session. The board should also cite the specific subsection of the statute that permits meetings in closed session.
Lester Jones, Board President, assured me that in the future, topics for discussion in closed session will be publicized in a more detailed and specific manner and that these topics will be linked to specific exceptions to the open meetings law.
In an earlier posted I chastised Jones for either lying or getting faulty information from the board’s legal counsel. The word lying is a little strong and for that I apologize. In a discussion with him, I believe he checked with the board’s attorney and that his advice conflicts with the Attorney General.
posted by Bob Ziller @ 10:00 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
Do you think the school board made the mistake in this situation? Or does the finger get pointed at their legal advisors? Afterall, the board has to protect the district against law suits that could spring from the wrong info being discessed in open session. Other than Judy Remmington, I don't believe there are any other lawyers on the board.
I definately believe that closed sessions are the exceptions and not the rule. But I also believe that legal complications could be costly to the district and that is why we retain a legal firm to advise the board on these matters.
Interesting point. WITC spent around $30,000 in the last five years on attorney's fees or $6,000 a year.
NRSD spends upwards to $30,000 in one year. What gives? Look at the size of WITC.
What trouble do you think the district could get into, if it discussed the administrator's contract in open session.
How about Assignment of administrative duties? This is a unilateral board responsibility. There may be superintendent input, but this too can be in open session. This is just common sense.
How about "Issues related to confidentiality?" This one topic covers everything and is so ambiguous, that it tells the public nothing.
Here's how I would do it:
Land acquisition. Discuss price relative to suitibility of location, utilities, size relating to a given piece of land and issues on purchase contract. Close per WI law 19.85(1)(e) on negotiations the purchasing of public property.
I have recently discovered fraud from the 2005 Capital Improvement Plans, has anyone looked at these records, we received them from the District and had questions. We brought this claim to the School Board mtg. in May. We are currently investigating this further, but it looks exactly like fraud... I also have witnessed, violations in Open Records Law, Safe Place Law and the Right to Know Statute, all 3 have happened directly to me more than once since 2013. I was terminated from Head Start for REPORTING black mold in room #107 of the Commons in Aug. 2103. Black mold was indeed found, seven months later as I reported a second time. The 3 Head Start Administrators and Our Community Ed. director ignored my Health Concern. Under the polices for our district, how can this happen. I have taken my concerns to the board, tried to schedule meetings and I have been ignored in many ways. Is this the way a good taxpayer is treated by Public Officials? Jill MacRae, NR. WI
Post a Comment
<< Home