Use, Misuse, and Abuse of Executive Sessions?

We hope that new board members Graff and Kilquist are (or will soon be) in compliance with Illinois law that requires all elected and appointed members of a public body (such as a community college board of trustees) take the Attorney General's electronic Open Meetings Act training within 90 days and provide the public body with a certificate of completion of the training.

A review of board minutes from 2012 and 2013 (14 meetings not including the one for presidential interviews and two retreats) shows that more time was spent in executive session than in regular meeting in all but five meetings – and even those five averaged almost an hour each in executive session.  In most cases, the Board comes out of executive session and approves all recommended hires with little else done in the open meeting. 

It's hard to believe that if the hiring process is really working (as some board members claim) there is any need for lengthy executive sessions.  For example, in May 2012, the regular meeting lasted for about 45 minutes and the executive session was over three hours long.  When the Board reconvened, there were only 15 personnel items approved.  What was discussed for over three hours?

Like we saw in the April 2013 meeting, Brewer tried to postpone the discussion on the "no cause" clause in Dreith's contract to executive session.

In all the 2012 and 2013 minutes, the board has gone into closed session "to discuss the appointment, employment, and compensation of specific individuals and pending litigation."  Other times this phrase has included the "discussion of collective bargaining or purchase of real property."  All of these are appropriate reasons to go to executive session – assuming that is what is being discussed.

Is the executive session being abused?  It's certainly something to keep an eye on!