The Steamboat Pilot & Today

The newspaper sued the School Board over how the board handled a Jan. 8 executive session. It has been our contention that the School Board did not properly announce the executive session, thus making it an illegal session and automatically opening the tapes of that session to pubic scrutiny.

It's important to note that we gave the School Board opportunities to resolve this short of costly litigation.

--The board could have amended its announcement of the executive session on Jan. 8 to clarify its purpose. The board made no such effort, even though the newspaper raised its objections to the session at the Jan. 8 meeting. The newspaper warned the board that it would seek tapes of the session. No one on the board responded.

--The board could have obliged our request for the tapes of the Jan. 8 session, thus eliminating the need for litigation. The board refused.

--The School Board initiated settlement discussions. We made an initial offer that included payment of our attorney fees. The School Board was free to reject it, but it's a stretch to equate not offering more favorable settlement terms with harassment.

Judge Thomas Ossola has affirmed his ruling against the newspaper. While we respect his judgment that nothing illegal occurred during the session, we remain disappointed that the judge did not address how the session was announced. It is a decision that we believe is adverse not only to newspapers, but also to the public.

The public has a right to know why — with as much specificity as possible without compromising the need for the executive session — public boards need to close their doors. When the board ignores that requirement, there should be a consequence. Judge Ossola's ruling, in our view, ignores those principles.

The next step for the newspaper is to appeal the judge's ruling. That this case would proceed to appeal is not surprising. The case the newspaper cited in arguing the Jan. 8 closed session should be considered open — Gumina v. City of Sterling — lost at the local court level before prevailing before the Court of Appeals.

We believe we have a strong appellate case. We have to weigh the costs of such an appeal against the outcome before making a decision. But should we move forward with an appeal, it is because we take seriously our role in protecting and preserving the public's interest in open government, not because we want to harass the school district.

Here is another article from The News Media & The Law Web site that I think addresses our overall concerns very well.

Scott Stanford, Editor

sstanford@steamboatpilot.com

(970) 871-4221/(970) 291-9278