Editorial - It’s important to keep informed

— Feb. 8, 1968

Suppose that the local city council is scheduled to meet on the first Thursday night of each month, but that when the press arrived for the meeting, it was found that the meeting apparently had been postponed to another date - without notification to the public through the news media.

And, now, suppose that the local school board is asked to establish a policy that the law says is left to the responsibility of the individual school boards, but suppose that the board members discuss the matter privately without bringing it up in a public meeting.

In both these instances, the two elected bodies apparently would have been breaking the law.

That’s because the General Assembly in 1967 passed Act No. 93, commonly known as the “Freedom of Information” act. It represents one of the finest stands that has been made in this state to protect the public.

There are 10 sections to the Act, and the two that would make the above suppositions illegal are Section 5 (Open Public Meetings) and Section 2 (Declaration of Public Policy).

Among the definitions of Section 5 is this: “In the event of emergency, or special, meetings the person calling such a meeting shall notify the representatives of the newspapers, radio stations and television station, if any, located in the county in which the meeting is to be held and which have requested to be so notified of such emergency of special meetings of the time, place and date at least two hours before such a meeting takes place in order that the public shall have representatives at the meeting.”

It should be noted here that it has been made clear by this publication that it is interested in reporting in person all meetings of both the Pea Ridge City Council and School Board and will do so, if those meetings are made knownas to time and date.

Going farther on this same section of the law, it says: “Except otherwise specifically provided by law, all meetings formal or informal, special or regular, of the governing bodies of all municipalities, counties, townships and school districts, and all board, bureaus, commissions or organizations of the State of Arkansas, except Grand Juries, supported wholly or in part by public funds, or expending public funds, shall be made public meetings...”

The law does say that executive sessions are permissible if, and only if, they are for the purpose “of discussing or considering employment appointment, promotion, demotion, disciplining or resignation of any public officer or employee...” but, says the law, “no resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation or motion considered or arrived at in executive session will be legal unless following the executive session, the public reconvenes in public session and presents and votes on such resolution, ordinance, rule, contract, regulation or motion.”

In other words, if such a body changes its meeting date and does not notify the people’s representative (the press), then whatever action is taken at that meeting is not legal and would not stand up in court.

Apparently the law-making body of Arkansas wanted no more of the public business handled by private telephone conversations or over coffee cups in someone’s restaurant or home, for they included this definition on Section 2, “Declaration of public policy.

It is vital in a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner so that the electors shall be advised of the performances of public officials and of the decisionsthat are reached in public activity and in making public policy. Toward this end, this act is adopted, making it possible for them, or their representatives, to learn and to report fully the activities of their public officials.”

One good that comes from this part of the law is that if policy affecting the public is decided upon outside of a formal meeting, the chances are that one member of the group might tend to dominate the others with his opinion. If the question is presented for vote in an open meeting, then weaker members at least could vote on the matter. And, of course, the fact that the public should be represented by more than one person is one reason why boards and councils dealing with public money and property (including children) must have several members. Otherwise, there would be no need toelect but one.

Sometime back, a local person expressed to this editor the wish to know a certain thing about some business that had been handled by the city, then added: “But I don’t guess they would let me see the records on it.”

Now, really! Whose records are the city records?

They are, of course, the city’s, and they city, of course, is you and I and the other residents of that city.

However, somewhere in the state there may actually be a city clerk or school board secretary or some other comparable official who has not let the public look at its own records, for the General Assembly a year ago took time to assure the public the right to see such records.

Section 4 of the FOIA says: “Except as otherwise specifically provided by laws now in effect, or laws hereafter specifically enacted to provide otherwise, all state, county, township, municipal and school district records which by law are required to be kept and maintained shall be open to inspection and copying by any citizen of the State of Arkansasduring the regular business hours of the custodian of the records...Reasonable access to these records and reasonable comfort and facilities for the full exercise of the right to inspect and copy such records shall not be denied to any citizen. If the record is in active use or in storage and, therefore, not available, at the time a citizen asks to examine it, the custodian shall certify this fact in writing to the applicant and set a date and hour within three days at which time the record will be available for the exercise of the right given by this act.”

Americans have lost much of their freedom as creeping socialism and a later complication of the disease called Galloping Socialism has spread. But a big hearty note of appreciation is due the current law makers of Arkansas for making a decisive stand on the matter of assuring the citizens of their rightto know what their officials are doing with their money, their property and the things that affect them.

This new FOIA has already been proved in Arkansas courts. The weekly North Little Rock Times won its suit against the City Council of that city and showed that a city council does not have the right even to exclude the press when it is consulting with its attorney on what otherwise might be confidential - if the consultation were between a business and its attorney.

Of course, not every citizen can or will go to find out about such matters. And that is where the grave responsibility of the news media lies.

The Pea Ridge Graphic recognizes this responsibility and is doing its best to attend such meetings and developments as affect the reading public and to interpret through conscientious reporting the happenings as accurately and unabiasedly as possible.

◊◊◊

Earle and Billie Jines were the publisher and editor of the Pea Ridge newspaper from 1947-1975. Billie wrote this editorial to be published annually

Opinion, Pages 4 on 03/03/2010