Closed Session--the rules

     Several weeks ago at the regular meeting, I complained to the New Richmond School Board about the proliferation of closed sessions and how they were publicized in the meeting agenda.  I was told by Lester Jones that this been approved by the board’s legal counsel.  
     I thought this rather strange as such closed session announcements are routine and wondered why legal counsel was even consulted.  Maybe this is why the school district’s legal fees are so high.  Sooo, on to a second opinion.  I wrote my good democrat friend, Attorney General Peggy Lautenschlager.  I explained my concerns in a cover letter and attached the official,  October 26th special meeting agenda.  Here is the last two-paragraph response from Mr. Alan Lee, Asst. Attorney General in the Dept. of Justice.  
     “The board’s citation to section 19.85(1) and its subsection therefore, is not sufficient.  The notice, however, also lists other subjects such as “land acquisition, investigation update,” “administrative contract,” “assignment of administrative duties and “issues related to confidentiality.”  The specific subjects of the closed meeting could have been better explained without compromising the reason for closing the meeting.  The lack of clarity could have been cured if the board had followed the law’s requirement to list the specific subsection justifying closing the meeting.  For example, if “investigation update” involves a personnel matter, the board should have cited to section 19.85(1)(b) or section 19.85(1)(c), whichever was more appropriate.
     “I must conclude that the board’s agenda does not comport with the requirements of section 19.85(1).  The board’s notice of subject 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 meeting in closed session.”
     A copy of the letter was also sent to the School Board President.
     I can only draw one conclusion from the exchange between myself and Lester Jones at the Oct 26tth meeting: either Mr Jones lied to me about checking with the attorney or the board is getting poor advice from their attorney.