Fox in charge of the hen house

The library controversy touches on so many topics worth mentioning. The drama involves personalities (what board, volunteer or otherwise, doesn’t?) and so much more.

Do you think the sun is shining at the Daviess County Library? By this I mean are library board operations visible to the patrons and taxpayers they serve? Let me explain why these questions persist.

After the May 16 public meeting, many people upset by the resignation of former library director Allison Spidle planned to attend the next library board meeting. Special circumstances obviously prompted a special meeting — somehow the library needed transition and the board needed to employ an interim director.

Now, without peeking, can you tell me the URL of the library’s website and, if you can, do you go there to read board minutes? Do you drive over to the library to find the agenda of upcoming meetings?

Distrust builds when miscommunication occurs. The library controversy offers an example that all other public boards and entities handling taxpayer money should note. If you want to earn trust, you’ve got to work at being transparent and do more than what’s merely convenient.

The library regularly announces its upcoming meeting by posting a printed agenda at the library. That loosely complies with state law. But it hardly provides much sunshine.

In this case, the posting of the agenda for the special meeting contributed to the library controversy. The date of the special meeting was incorrectly posted for 10 am Tuesday rather than 10 am Wednesday, as announced at the meeting where Spidle actually resigned before a group of citizens.

This, in all probability, was a simple mistake and was promptly corrected once acknowledged. The meeting was held on Wednesday as previously announced. But the error did create confusion, and more than one person immediately assumed the intent was to deliberately manipulate scheduling the meeting so that fewer disgruntled citizens would attend.

An honest mistake or a deliberate manipulation?

When distrust is rooted in miscommunication, opinions harden regardless of fact and perhaps more so by biased perspective.

Was the corrected agenda posted on the library’s website? I cannot say. I looked and did not find it at the time. So, let’s say they did. Now, prove it. You see, another “he said, she said.”

The thing about digital is that it’s so easy to discretely change and, if you control the servers and the data logs, then you can say pretty much whatever you want to say… and change whatever you post online anytime. Talk about putting the fox in charge of the hen house! (And, of course, this says nothing to those who either don’t use the internet or would never think to go to the library’s website.)

Most of the time, we’re fortunate here that our local entities handling taxpayer money aren’t deliberately hiding what they do from the public. But it happens.

For the period of one year (July 2015 through June 2016), the Missouri State Auditor summarized findings from 16 audit reports with recommendations regarding the Sunshine Law (Chapter 610, RSMo). Briefly, here are some of the findings:

• In 10 of the 16 audit reports… formal meeting minutes were not prepared or maintained for some open meetings and for closed meetings. Meeting minutes did not always include sufficient detail of matters discussed or actions taken, and many decisions were not adequately documented. Reasons for closing meetings, the specific section of law allowing for the closed meetings, and information on the vote to close the meeting were not always adequately documented. In some cases, meeting minutes were not always reviewed and approved timely.
• In 3 of the 16 audit reports… adequate policies and procedures were not in place regarding public access to records or the policy was not in compliance with state law. In one audit, the entity did not respond timely to a public records request and a record was not maintained to document information requests received.
• In 4 of the 16 audit reports… a meeting agenda was not prepared, posted, and/or retained for all meetings or the agenda did not disclose sufficient information pertaining to the upcoming meeting.

By comparison, my guess is that our library board comes closer to doing as it should than other local entities serving Daviess County. Too often the Sunshine Law, organization bylaws, and Robert’s Rules of Order and other procedural necessities, are frequently ignored. The common refrain is: We’re all neighbors here, and we dislike playing hardball with rules and regulations.

Usually, it doesn’t matter if we relax or even selectively apply the rules…until it matters.

Then, perhaps emotionally, we’re suddenly butting heads and reading intentions into things that previously didn’t matter. Once out of the bottle, distrust is hard to bottle back up. And so, here again, the library controversy offers an example of what other entities should avoid doing.

First, reconsider what was repeated in the audit summaries above: “…the minutes did not always include sufficient details of discussions held and decisions made.” By comparison to other local entities, library board minutes are quite good (actually quite detailed). And yet, I’m not sure I would have anticipated the director’s resignation by these library board minutes.

My point? Meeting minutes for school boards, city boards, special road districts, water boards, park boards, even county commissions, usually do not provide sufficient details of discussions held and decisions made. Frequently they comply with the letter of the law without encouraging much in the way of public awareness or understanding. Again, in times of distrust, such practices fuel — no, guarantee — controversy.

One more thought: Can you find the time and date of the next public library board meeting by looking at the website? I can’t, at least as I write this (that could change in a click). I don’t necessarily mean this as a criticism of the library. The issue is much bigger than this.

During the past legislative session, at least three legislative proposals did not pass but would have eroded Sunshine. One (Senate Bill 580) would have required public notices to be posted only on a website; another (House Bill 1651) would have allowed foreclosure sales to be posted only on a website; another (HB2325) would have allowed unclaimed properties to be posted only on a website.

Last year there was a proposal (SB47) for all public notices to be posted online, eliminating all notices published in newspapers. Legislative proposals like these continue to crop up and should be denied.

If we depend on the entity to enforce the Sunshine Law on the websites they maintain and operate…well, from the library to the school to the city and beyond, let’s say that’s just getting too foxy.