Gloria Reyes tells us why she thinks the school board was meeting, despite staff saying that the reason couldn’t be told to the public because that would harm the reputation of those involved. Her statements make the illegal meeting seem even less properly noticed. However, I’m not sure the school board members even knew why they were meeting. TJ Mertz and Nicki Vander Muelen vote not to go into closed session. Dean Loumos and James Howard agree the notice was not appropriate but feel its urgent to meet so ignore the open meetings issues and think it can be fixed later . . . here’s the video.
(Sorry about the video, I did it hand held and my battery was dying so I was simultaneously trying to get it plugged in or grab my audio recorder . . . however, despite being at 0 minutes left the battery lasted long enough to get the video)
The video is disturbing for so many reasons.
Here’s the open meetings law:
19.84 Public notice.
(2) Every public notice of a meeting of a governmental body shall set forth the time, date, place and subject matter of the meeting, including that intended for consideration at any contemplated closed session, in such form as is reasonably likely to apprise members of the public and the news media thereof. The public notice of a meeting of a governmental body may provide for a period of public comment, during which the body may receive information from members of the public.
and
19.85 Exemptions.
(1) Any meeting of a governmental body, upon motion duly made and carried, may be convened in closed session under one or more of the exemptions provided in this section. The motion shall be carried by a majority vote in such manner that the vote of each member is ascertained and recorded in the minutes. No motion to convene in closed session may be adopted unless the chief presiding officer announces to those present at the meeting at which such motion is made, the nature of the business to be considered at such closed session, and the specific exemption or exemptions under this subsection by which such closed session is claimed to be authorized. Such announcement shall become part of the record of the meeting. No business may be taken up at any closed session except that which relates to matters contained in the chief presiding officer’s announcement of the closed session. A closed session may be held for any of the following purposes:
(a) Deliberating concerning a case which was the subject of any judicial or quasi-judicial trial or hearing before that governmental body.
(b) Considering dismissal, demotion, licensing or discipline of any public employee or person licensed by a board or commission or the investigation of charges against such person, or considering the grant or denial of tenure for a university faculty member, and the taking of formal action on any such matter; provided that the faculty member or other public employee or person licensed is given actual notice of any evidentiary hearing which may be held prior to final action being taken and of any meeting at which final action may be taken. The notice shall contain a statement that the person has the right to demand that the evidentiary hearing or meeting be held in open session. This paragraph and par. (f) do not apply to any such evidentiary hearing or meeting where the employee or person licensed requests that an open session be held.
(c) Considering employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility.
(d) Except as provided in s. 304.06 (1) (eg) and by rule promulgated under s. 304.06 (1) (em), considering specific applications of probation, extended supervision or parole, or considering strategy for crime detection or prevention.
(e) Deliberating or negotiating the purchasing of public properties, the investing of public funds, or conducting other specified public business, whenever competitive or bargaining reasons require a closed session.
(ee) Deliberating by the council on unemployment insurance in a meeting at which all employer members of the council or all employee members of the council are excluded.
(eg) Deliberating by the council on worker’s compensation in a meeting at which all employer members of the council or all employee members of the council are excluded.
(em) Deliberating under s. 157.70 if the location of a burial site, as defined in s. 157.70 (1) (b), is a subject of the deliberation and if discussing the location in public would be likely to result in disturbance of the burial site.
(f) Considering financial, medical, social or personal histories or disciplinary data of specific persons, preliminary consideration of specific personnel problems or the investigation of charges against specific persons except where par. (b) applies which, if discussed in public, would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect upon the reputation of any person referred to in such histories or data, or involved in such problems or investigations.
(g) Conferring with legal counsel for the governmental body who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved.
(h) Consideration of requests for confidential written advice from the elections commission under s. 5.05 (6a) or the ethics commission under s. 19.46 (2), or from any county or municipal ethics board under s. 19.59 (5).
(2) No governmental body may commence a meeting, subsequently convene in closed session and thereafter reconvene again in open session within 12 hours after completion of the closed session, unless public notice of such subsequent open session was given at the same time and in the same manner as the public notice of the meeting convened prior to the closed session.
(3) Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize a governmental body to consider at a meeting in closed session the final ratification or approval of a collective bargaining agreement under subch. I, IV, or V of ch. 111 which has been negotiated by such body or on its behalf.
Here’s a few observations from the video:
1. Mary Burke, the School Board President, never states the subject matter of the meeting, neither does the agenda.
2. TJ Mertz’s comments are great about what the board’s role is and what their responsibility is. He points out that he doesn’t think the notice was legally sufficient and that they could have made a more legally sufficient notice. But more importantly he points out that as a board member he doesn’t have sufficient knowledge about the meeting to vote to go into closed session. They were not provided any information or materials on which to base their vote.
3. Dean Loumos’ agrees that there is minimal language that could have fixed the problem. He says they should err on the side including the simple suggestions that would satisfy things – going forward. He says this issue is moving so quick he doesn’t want to delay discussion. He wants to discuss it today and solve the problem. To me, the problem is that this is not a reason to go into closed session. Mary Burke agrees with him.
4. TJ Mertz asks Dean Loumos point blank what they will be discussing. Staff jump in before Loumos can answer and say that they can’t say the subject matter of the meeting, otherwise they won’t be able to protect the interests of the person they are trying to protect.
5. They seem to not want to reschedule the meeting to give a sufficient notice – but they plow ahead even if the notice isn’t legal. James Howard’s comments about having to resolve something and “get it done” seem to imply they are taking some sort of action.
6. Gloria Reyes was sitting right there when staff said that, but she still says that the meeting is about personnel issues at Sherman middle school, despite staff’s warning that they shouldn’t say what the issue is. She wants to go into closed session to talk about the personnel issues. TJ points out that is not what was noticed. [They cited (f) from the law above, not (b)]
7. Mertz correctly points out that if the information they are going to discuss is already in the public record, there is no reason to go into closed session and he doesn’t know if they will be getting new information because they don’t know what they will be discussing.
The board plows ahead and has the meeting. Mertz and Vander Muelen vote no to go into closed session but stay. We’ll probably never know what happened. Did they “solve the problem”? Did they “get it done”? Was the meeting about “personnel” issues? If so, the meeting was not noticed for that. Was the meeting about new information?
We may never know. After closed session the board did not make any public statement, so we’re left guessing about what the meeting was about and if they actually decided anything as a result of the meeting. I can’t imagine in what world, even the new Wisconsin, that this was legal. I look forward to getting a copy of their minutes and forwarding that, the notice, and the video to the District Attorney and finding out if he’s too busy to deal with this or if he will take the matter up. Or at least write a letter of reprimand to the school board. Seems like they are in serious need of some training.
