Opinion:

Elected officials shouldn’t have to be asked to follow the state’s open meeting laws.  

On Jan. 15 I saw that the Arcadia city council was meeting in closed session citing state statute exemption 19.85(1)(c), which allows the council to secretly discuss matters concerning public employees. The problem was that this meeting wasn’t about a public employee, it was about the vacant police chief position. 

At that point, the city had yet to publicly acknowledge the vacancy even existed. I don’t think it’s a stretch to suggest that residents should be made aware that the city doesn’t have a chief of police and what city officials intend to do about it. Posts on the mayor’s personal Facebook page can’t be considered evidence of transparency. Taxpayers shouldn’t be required to be “friends” with the mayor to get public information. 

I sent an inquiry about the closed session. The topic was listed as “police chief hire,” so I asked if the council was going to hire a new police chief or if was merely discussing the prospects of hiring a new chief. That is an important difference because the Wisconsin Department of Justice Open Meeting Compliance Guide explicitly states “Wis. Stat 19.85(1)(c)… does not authorize a closed session to discuss the qualifications and salary range for the position in general.” 

I never received a response to that question. After the meeting, I found the action the council took upon reconvening in open session was to allow the mayor to hire an interim chief of police. I don’t see how that fits within the state statute exemption. 

On Jan. 28, the city sent another agenda for a special meeting to be held the following day with the same closed session statute and topic listed. 

Again, I sent in an inquiry. 

Again, I didn’t get a response. 

So, I brought it to the public’s attention with a column published on our website.

How could anybody know what was going to be discussed based on what the city had posted? Especially after the Jan. 15 meeting resulted in action that probably should have been discussed publicly. There are several reasons why the listing was concerning.

The city canceled the Jan. 29 meeting about an hour after the column was posted. I commend the city for doing the right thing, but it shouldn’t have had to come to that.

The city was made aware of a potential issue on Jan. 15 and chose to do nothing about it. It was made aware again on Jan. 28 and, again, ignored the issue. It wasn’t until the public was made aware of the city’s intent on Jan. 29 that the city did the right thing. 

Even more troubling is that I’ve learned the city intends to try to have the conversation in private again. This time, it wants to use a different exemption — one that likely doesn’t apply to employment issues. If city officials value transparency, why are they trying so hard to privately have a conversation that the DOJ specifically says should be held publicly? The public has a right to know how the city intends to fill the vacancy — including how much the city is willing to pay the new chief. When the city chooses to ignore open meeting laws, it invites controversy and conspiracy theories. 

Part of my job is to make sure the public can obtain information it has a right to. If an elected official has a problem with that, what does that say about them?