The Advocate has drawn a line in the sand for public employees

The Advocate did a good job of telling the story of a secret meeting in New Albany between a developer and Newark's city officials, including the majority of a council committee.

As close as they could get to demonstrating Newark officials' disregard for their constituents and the legality of such meetings was calling it "a private meeting that might have violated the state's Open Meetings Act."

At least they tried, and I give them credit for that. There wasn't enough proof to go further than "might have violated."

To prove violation, the matter would have to go to court. Short of that, the newspaper had to rely on the word of the city law director who said the meeting didn't directly relate to city business and that council members did not debate an issue to come before them. I'm not a lawyer, but I can read, and this is what that law says (and here's the link to that law):

C. DEFINITION OF A “MEETING” UNDER THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT
Before a public body is subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act, it must first have a meeting. A “meeting” is a prearranged gathering of a majority of the members of a public body to discuss or conduct public business.

What if the members of the public body are not “deliberating” or “discussing” public business?
Some courts have found that a gathering of the members of a public body is not a meeting where they act only as passive observers in a ministerial fact-gathering capacity or informational session.

Are work sessions “meetings” subject to the Open Meetings Act?
Yes. Work sessions where public business is discussed among a majority of the members of a public body are meetings and must be noticed and open as any other meeting.

So what do you think, citizen? Did your city employees go off in a group to New Albany to meet with a developer without telling the press because they like the ambiance of New Albany better than Newark?

And are you going to go back and read the Advocate's report and remember the names of these people and take those memories with you to the voting booth?

The good that will come of it is this: Your city employees aren't going to be so ballsie about scooting off to private meetings next time, now that the Advocate has done its job - and in effect it has drawn a line in the sand. Next time, our city employees may not be so lucky and now they know it. That's what good reportage can do.