WHAT SHAMEFUL THING DID THEY DO?

Public bodies are allowed to go into executive session for a limited amount of reasons, usually to discuss personnel issues.  This is to protect the personnel being considered for hiring, promotion or dismissal, not to protect the politicians from embarrassment.  The recent controversy surrounding student trustee Brandi Husch leads one to believe that the John A. Logan Board of Trustees exceeded the limits of what they may do in executive session.  Ironically, they are now attempting to use that very shroud of executive session secrecy to protect themselves from ridicule, or even a description of their actions while in executive session.  

As members of the public we would assume that there is a sense of decorum and seriousness that these elected officials keep during executive session.  This expectation would certainly apply to the session in question.  The Board was discussing the dismissal of 55 loyal employees.  That's all they were supposed to be discussing.  

Ms. Husch claims she became the subject of their discussion.  That is off limits.  She is an elected official.  Secrecy and the "sanctity" of the session does not apply to discussion of her.  Even the Board's own attorney unintentionally admitted as much.  When asked if, when discussion veered away from the topics on the agenda, there was a "legal obligation" to refrain from revealing the content of discussion, he responded that there was "an obligation".  Well, he's the lawyer, but we can all see that, beyond his spin, his real answer was 'no'.

He responded to Ms. Husch's accusations, on WPSD-TV Channel 6, by saying, "When things are discussed in an executive session, things can get heated,"  Perhaps.  But the "executive session" exception to the Open Meetings Act wasn't designed to hide heated discussion.  It is to protect employees and potential employees, who are under discussion.  Those who were supposed to be under discussion, March 2 were the 55 employees whose livelihoods were at risk.  If the discussion strayed off into one of Ms. Husch, then it was not she, but Chairman Brewer and the remaining members of the Board who were in violation.  And maybe not of the "sanctity" of the executive session, but perhaps in violation of the Open Meetings Act itself.  

All of this leaves unanswered questions.

• What exactly happened in that room March 2?
• What Board members bullied and shamed the student trustee?
• Did Chairman Brewer fail to act to stop this activity?
• Did other members attempt to stop it?
• If not, why not?
• Bullying and shaming sound an awful lot like intimidation and extortion.  Is the Board's legal counsel saying that such "heated discussion" can take place, behind closed doors, that may affect hiring and firing of staff and the votes of Board members?