|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|||||||||
|
Editorial |
|||||||||
|
Cherryville holding too many closed meetings March 15, 2002 - A city council that finds it necessary to constantly shut out the public from its meetings is doing a disservice to the citizens it serves. It is understandable for an elected body to hold some closed sessions on personnel matters, particularly when salary and promotions are under consideration. Elected bodies also enter executive sessions to consider contractual matters and to receive legal advice. But such sessions should be brief and infrequent. In Cherryville, the council held ten closed sessions in 2001 and four this year. That’s too many. Several of this year’s meetings probably revolved around the resignation of City Manager Ben Blackburn, who informed council members of his resignation last month but asked them to not go public. We still haven’t heard the details surrounding Blackburn’s departure. Mayor Wade Stroupe has defending the closed sessions, saying, “this is absolutely authorized by the law.” He went on to say “there are some matters that never may be open and I’m comfortable with that.” We are not. Elected officials who want to deal honestly and openly with the city they serve should consider public accountability a top priority. Simply because our laws allow a body to go into closed meetings doesn’t mean they should. Every elected official should view calls for closed meetings with skepticism.
|
|||||||||
|
© 2001 Lincoln Times-News |
|||||||||
|
||||||
|
