Recently, several African-American elected officials hosted a public forum by Zoom to discuss issues relating to the Southside Economic Development District. However, one Southside city council member did not attend the online (Zoom) meeting and gave the open meetings law as an excuse. That member was ill-informed.
Local officials often refuse to attend meetings that may be controversial and use the State Open Meetings Law as an excuse.
This was the case Tuesday, February 16th, when Council Member Kema Dawson-Robinson explained her non-participation in a public meeting concerning a proposed tax for the Southside. Councilmember Dawson-Robinson posted the following on her social media page:
“I will not be on this Zoom call due to following guidelines regarding having a quorum (more than 2 City Council Members) at a public meeting- and this call would constitute a meeting. However, I will get feedback on the meeting and I will be in favor of what District 5 residents decide.”
There are only five members on the Monroe City Council since two other members: Juanita Woods and Carday Marshal were among those who called the meeting. Dawson-Robinson opted out because she erroneously told constituents that three city council members’ presence at a public meeting was illegal. (She listened in on the Zoom meeting, even though she said it was unlawful to do so.)
Respectfully, Councilwoman Dawson-Robinson was misinformed.
No state law prohibits public officials from attending public meetings as citizens, even if their presence would ordinarily constitute a quorum if they were meeting in an official capacity.
Since so many officials have been ill-informed on this subject, last year, the Attorney General issued a formal opinion on the matter (20-0098). The opinion says:
“Nothing in the Open Meetings Law prohibits members of a public body from attending open meetings of another public body as citizens. The AG notes that whether a quorum of members of a public body attending an open meeting of another public body is a violation of the Open Meetings Law is a fact specific question. That is, the mere fact that a quorum is present at any particular location does not constitute a violation of the Open Meetings Law; the quorum acting, deliberating or receiving information on matters over which the public body has supervision, control, jurisdiction or advisory power would. ”
Read the La. Open Meetings Law FAQ
It seems that members conveniently point to the Open Meetings law to avoid attending troublesome meetings, but otherwise, they have no objection to attending public gatherings. For example, recently, all three Southside city council members attended a public meeting in which they were promoting the formation of Neighborhood watch organizations and the Police citizen’s Academy. The presence of the three would constitute a quorum in a formal city meeting, but there was no formal city meeting underway, and even if it was, it was legally advertised and open to the public.
Members of the Monroe City School Board routinely attend meetings of the school board’s committees as citizens, although their presence in the room would technically constitute a quorum. However, those in the audience were not members of the committee, and the meeting was legally advertised with opportunities for public comment; their attendance as citizens was not a violation of the law.
The Open Meetings law idea is that elected officials must conduct business in public with ample notice with opportunities for public input. No law stops citizens who happen to be public officials from attending another body’s meetings or participating in a general discussion.
However, if those same officials met secretly to discuss an issue and polled their views, that would be an Open Meetings violation.
The law also forces public bodies to operate in public. It requires a 24-hour notice of a public meeting posted in the official journal, its website, or on the door of the meeting place, AND notice is given to any news media or citizen that has requested notification. Decisions which are made in meetings that do not comply with the open meeting laws are void.
For the last few years, the Southside Economic Development District has hosted monthly meetings, generally outside of public view. The district’s meetings are posted on the door of its location; however, news media are rarely informed. The SEDD has recently hosted several such meetings in which it decided to place a .0055 cents tax on the ballot for the Southside. However, the meeting was held in violation of the Open Meetings law opening the possibility of a challenge to the legality of its decision to call for a tax if any citizen chose to take the SEDD to court for violating the open meetings law.
If a citizen takes an agency to court over the Open Meeting laws, the agency pays the citizen’s legal bill and incurs a $500 fine for each violation.
This publication and other local news media have taken government agencies in our area to court frequently over the years. There is no instance where a media outlet or citizen that filed a verifiable claim has lost.
Louisiana’s open meetings law is one of the strongest in the nation. It leans toward the citizen’s right to know when and how decisions are made with an opportunity for input. Tricky moves and sleights of hand by officials to avoid operating in public is illegal.
Officials cannot use the open meetings law as an excuse not to attend public meetings where they will have to face their constituents on matters of public concern.
