An example of why these "closed sessions" of all our local governing boards have are so bad | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer.

    If you've ever wondered why we at the Observer are stickers for enforcement of the Open Meetings law this story will amply demonstrate the problem of governing boards meeting in secret session to make various decisions. In this case it is the most typical abuse we see— personnel decisions.

    Recently, in Granville County there was an example of this Good Ole Boys Backroom Dealings game that nearly every governing board in the state uses.

    Here's the skinny version. A superintendent in one North Carolina county ended up being the second highest paid superintendent in the state, among those in the same student enrollment category, and the Associate Superintendent ended up going from a salary of $92,000 to almost $172,000. An external audit showed recently that there was no record in the board's minutes of the board actually approving the pay raise action. But the Superintendent and School Board Chair claim the board "was aware" and that the chairman approved the raises (presumably after it was discussed in closed session) and none of the board members questioned that action.

    Now here's what we typically see. A board will go into closed session "to discuss personnel action." They'll come back out of closed session and vote on a cryptic motion that usually reveals very little. The people who were in the closed session have much more information, but often they have a decidedly different interpretation of that information. The problem is often that the public cannot tell what the details were and as often as not the board members don't really know what was actually done. The motions approved usually don't contain sufficient information for anyone, including the public, to know what the board actually approved.

    The solution: Video the closed sessions as well as the public sessions. Then when the legitimate reason for the secret session is passed and if there is ever a question about what was done then the video can be reviewed, even if it is only by a mediator, district attorney, grand jury or a judge. But in most cases the public should have access to the video after the actual need for secrecy has passed.

    And we would add, if the Open Meetings law is violated, the participants of the meeting should have to pay the legal bills for the blunder they participated in. The taxpayers should not have to pay the lawyers to defend the board members' illegal actions and a successful plaintiff should have their expenses reimbursed by the individuals involved. That in and of itself would do much to eliminate the corruption that is now extant.

    Here's the WRAL-TV story on the Granville County mess:

    An audit released Friday found that Granville County school leaders, including the superintendent and associate superintendent, received large pay raises and contract extensions without the approval of the Board of Education.

    "Most board members expressed that they were surprised to learn the details" of the contracts, according to Jill Wilson, an attorney with Brooks Pierce in Greensboro, who was hired by the school board to do the audit.

    In several instances, the contracts noted that the board "voted unanimously" to approve pay hikes and other changes, but the auditor found that there was "absolutely no evidence" in the board's meeting minutes or from board members' recollections that the votes ever occurred.

    "The board chair believed he and counsel for the board were authorized to not only engage in negotiations with senior staff, but to enter into contracts on behalf of the board of education without any formal action of the board whatsoever," Wilson wrote.

    Wilson found that Superintendent Tim Farley "is the second highest paid superintendent in the state with less than 25,000 students." She also found that Associate Superintendent Allan Jordan received a "'cost of living allowance' and a large raise that was applied retroactively even though the fiscal year was over."

    From 2007 until now, Jordan's total compensation "changed from just over $92,000 to almost $172,000, which was applied retroactively beginning Jan. 1, 2012, through the present, with only $1,800 of that increase actually resulting from board action," Wilson wrote.

    Click here to go to the original source to read the rest of the story, and the WRAL article also contains a link that you can see how much money all superintendents in the state make. (Beware however, experience has shown that the "reported compensation" is not always what the actual compensation is. You can't determine that unless you read the individuals actual contract.)

    Note: The Allan Jordan in this story is not Alan Jordan, Sheriff of Beaufort County. But Sheriff Jordan has done exactly the same thing (given raises without the approval of the Board of Commissioners.) How do we know that? We've read the minutes of Board of Commissioners meetings and there are no records of the salary decisions Sheriff Jordan has made in those minutes that have been approved by the Board. Same as in Granville County.