School Boards and Secrecy

In his response to Ken Johnson's letter criticising his visit to the MTEA (the Milwaukee teacher's union) during negotiations, Peter Blewett devotes considerable space to arguing that everything said in an executive session should be secret. This could represent a major advance for the cause of school board secrecy.

Here is an example. Let's say a school superintendent wants to inform the board about major financial problems, but does not want the press or public to pick up on the story. So he asks for an executive session of the board, only to be informed that state law requires that discussion of district finances be held in public. Thus he is out of luck....or is he?

However the board can meet in executive session to discuss its bargaining strategy with the union, one of the exemptions from the state open meetings law, on the theory that disclosing the strategy to the other side could put the negotiators at a disadvantage. As part of the discussion of strategy, the superientendent may talk about the district's precarious financial situation as background to why the offer cannot be more generous.

If board members are now obligated not to disclose anything they learned about the district's financial situation, on the grounds that this information came out in an executive session, the superintendent is able to achieve his original, illegal, goal.

For a more detailed critique of this expansion of secrecy, see my letter here.