Shed a little light on those tax dollars, please

A school board in the state is debating the issue of discussing the superintendent’s salary in
open session. The board is considering giving the superintendent a raise.

This appears to be a difficult sunshine law issue for that board. The law in this area speaks
clearly in regard to two issues. The problem is bringing those issues together. The answer is so
simple that is is upsetting to those who like closure because it means something they badly want
closed has to be done on the open. And it just feels uncomfortable. But it’s right.

The issue is the annual raise for the superintendent. They are not hiring, firing, disciplining
or promoting the superintendent, so they cannot close the meeting under Section 610.021 (3).
And clearly the issue of salary is open under Section 610.021 (13). The law says salary is
always open to the public.

So how can they discuss re-setting the salary of the superintendent in a closed meeting? There
are lots of arguments that are offered:

We are going to evaluate his performance, those for closure say. Fine. Do that it closed
session, but come back into open session to set his salary. The law, in Section 610.024, provides
that when records contain both open and closed materials, it is the duty of the body to separate
those two elements and make what is open available to the public. When this issue is considered
in the spirit in which the sunshine law is written, it is clear it is the duty of the body to separate
an open discussion and a closed discussion and hold the open discussion out in the open.
Certainly, there is NO argument that you can close open discussions just because they are
comingled with closed discussions. There is not one single word in the sunshine law to support
such an argument. Folks relying on such an argument have absolutely nothing to support their
position.

It goes against our policy, they say. Well, I know of not one single case where a court has
ruled that state statutes are subservient to any local entity’s policy. You cannot enact policies to
change state law. That ‘s pretty basic.
Everyone does it this way, they cry. One of my favorite arguments. I bet a judge would
just love that one. All it tells you is that everyone is wrong.

This is a simple issue. The law is clear that if closed and open is co-mingled, it is the duty of
the public body to separate it. The law is clear that salary matters related to current employees is
never closed.

Bring that discussion back out in the light of day. The taxpayers have a right to know how
their tax dollars are being spent.