Secret Meetings Are Not “Transparent”

On February 29, 2016, a meeting began at the Long Beach Town Center. The meeting had been posted on the Town’s website. The meeting was important. It was the first formal meeting which would be had between a governmental unit of the town government and McKenna & Associates, a company which would be selected to survey Long Beach residents regarding conditions in our town. This survey will serve as a basis for action by the Town Board which will affect all of us.

It is worth pointing out, at the outset, that one of the principal selling points of the Long Beach Party in the Autumn, 2015 Municipal Election, was the idea that somehow they would be more transparent than their opponents. One of their incumbent candidates had even been given a newly created “Miss Sunshine” award by the News Dispatch.

When the Chairman of the Comprehensive Plan Subcommittee of the Advisory Plan Commission (CPS-APC), Patrick Cannon, walked into the room at the Town Center he immediately saw that there was a court reporter and a videographer present. He expressed surprise that anyone knew of the meeting and then engaged in the following colloquy:

” MR. CANNON: I – – we were told by both attorneys’ office (sic) that this was not a meeting that was – – that we had to give notice to have anyone here. So, I guess, my first question is: how did you know there was a meeting?

MS. GERAGHTY: (Inaudible)

MR. CANNON: Huhm? Can you answer that question? (Then evidently addressing Kathleen Geraghty). I say we go over to your house.

MS. GERAGHTY: Sure.”

Cannon then remarked that this was the type of problem that he had to deal with in Long Beach and he, Geraghty, one other member of the CPS-APC, and the two representatives of McKenna & Associates then left the Town Center and adjourned the meeting of the CPS-APC to the private residence of Kathleen Geraghty.

Jim Dehner, leader of the opposition party, who showed up at the Town Center intending to watchdog the meeting for the public, was denied that opportunity by its being moved to a private residence and the CPS-APC got to have the secret meeting they desired.

Peter Byvoets, Town Board President, who is affiliated with the Long Beach Community Alliance, as are Cannon (who formerly led the organization), Geraghty, the other members of the CPS-APC, and virtually all office holders in town government and its various committees, then took the position that they did not know sub-committee meetings were subject to the Indiana Open Meetings Act, and had been advised by the Town Attorney that this was so.

Fortunately, Jim Dehner followed up and filed a complaint with the Public Access Counselor, who ruled on April 29, 2016, that subcommittee meetings were indeed covered and that the meeting was held in violation of Indiana Law. Perhaps the town ought to ask for a refund of the fees paid to the Town Attorney for the bogus advice, or perhaps the Alliance members who now make up town government should honor the pledges they made regarding transparency to the people in last Fall’s Election Campaign. There was no intent whatsoever here to be transparent, just the intention to appear as though they were being transparent. They were having the meeting in a public building but did not believe that anyone would know to be present because they were not aware that notice of the meeting had been mistakenly posted on the website.

Moreover, Pat Cannon was aware that this might be an issue. Why else would he consult with an attorney regarding the notice requirements BEFORE the meeting. Well, at least he and Geraghty wished the court reporter and the videographer a “fun night” when they adjourned the meeting to Geraghty’s house.

This meeting was important to our future. The CPS-APC was tasked with the responsibility “to develop a comprehensive plan for the development” of Long Beach. They were meeting for the first time with two representatives of McKenna & Associates, and would map out the process by which the Town will proceed. We need to know that everything was open and above board, like we have been promised it would be.

As the State of Indiana has determined, it was not. – ed

Frank Parkerson

3 Comments

    • Sorry, but you did not leave a name. If you wish to leave a comment please re-submit with your given name. No screen names please.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *