Comments on: WRT Board member comments on process http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/02/11/wrt-member-response/ Following the future of White River Township Wed, 02 Nov 2011 18:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mike Gerrish http://www.centergroveinc.org/2009/02/11/wrt-member-response/comment-page-1/#comment-157 Mike Gerrish Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:35:35 +0000 http://centergroveinc.org/?p=498#comment-157 I'd like to qualify my perspective. I am a member of Pleasant Township's Board and have served as a member of the Indiana Township Association's board representing all board members throughout Indiana's 1,000+ townships. I appreciate Mr. Acker's thoughts and his impression of why and what he agreed to when his board approved the resolution to have a study conducted. However, I need to disagree with his description of the working relationships of trustee and board members due to concerns about there being a "violation of the open door policy". Indiana's Public Meetings (Open Door Law) requirements are described in IC 5-14-1.5. The code does clearly prohibit some discussions between members of a body (e.g. the Township Board). But, it does not prohibit members of a legislative/fiscal body having discussions with the elected official of a governmental unit. In the case of Townships, regular discussions between individual board members and the Trustee can lead to enhancing the services provided; opening the path to discussions of new services or needs; and identify procedures that may need formal review and modification. Indiana's Public Access Counselor addressed a gathering of elected officials in Johnson County some time back to clarify what we could and could not do. The law was not presented as a means to prohibit communication but to keep the public's business public. We need to insure that deliberations that reach a point of decision do not reach that point in private - but - that does not mean that two people can not talk to each other. When a small body of three members is involved the line gets very fine regarding what is appropriate for discussion between any two members of that body since the two represent a majority. It is very easy to cross the line from discussion to debate leading to a decision so it is often best to avoid it. A Trustee is not a member of the legislative or fiscal body. The Trustee speaking with any member of the board doesn't risk violating the standards unless done in a serial format which is prohibited elsewhere in the chapter of the code. If there are other reasons for Trustees and Township Board members not talking, so be it. But, it shouldn't be attributed to requirements of the Public Meetings rules. If anyone: desires more information; has a question about Public Access; or thinks they have an issue needing investigation; they can visit the Public Access Counselor's web site at http://www.in.gov/pac/ for a wealth of information or to contact the folks who exercise oversight in this area. Mike Gerrish Greenwood I’d like to qualify my perspective. I am a member of Pleasant Township’s Board and have served as a member of the Indiana Township Association’s board representing all board members throughout Indiana’s 1,000+ townships.

I appreciate Mr. Acker’s thoughts and his impression of why and what he agreed to when his board approved the resolution to have a study conducted. However, I need to disagree with his description of the working relationships of trustee and board members due to concerns about there being a “violation of the open door policy”.

Indiana’s Public Meetings (Open Door Law) requirements are described in IC 5-14-1.5. The code does clearly prohibit some discussions between members of a body (e.g. the Township Board). But, it does not prohibit members of a legislative/fiscal body having discussions with the elected official of a governmental unit. In the case of Townships, regular discussions between individual board members and the Trustee can lead to enhancing the services provided; opening the path to discussions of new services or needs; and identify procedures that may need formal review and modification.

Indiana’s Public Access Counselor addressed a gathering of elected officials in Johnson County some time back to clarify what we could and could not do. The law was not presented as a means to prohibit communication but to keep the public’s business public. We need to insure that deliberations that reach a point of decision do not reach that point in private – but – that does not mean that two people can not talk to each other.

When a small body of three members is involved the line gets very fine regarding what is appropriate for discussion between any two members of that body since the two represent a majority. It is very easy to cross the line from discussion to debate leading to a decision so it is often best to avoid it.

A Trustee is not a member of the legislative or fiscal body. The Trustee speaking with any member of the board doesn’t risk violating the standards unless done in a serial format which is prohibited elsewhere in the chapter of the code.

If there are other reasons for Trustees and Township Board members not talking, so be it. But, it shouldn’t be attributed to requirements of the Public Meetings rules.

If anyone: desires more information; has a question about Public Access; or thinks they have an issue needing investigation; they can visit the Public Access Counselor’s web site at http://www.in.gov/pac/ for a wealth of information or to contact the folks who exercise oversight in this area.

Mike Gerrish
Greenwood

]]>