Indiana’s Open Door Law seeks to ensure that government decisions are made in full view of the public and to minimize the appearance of impropriety in such decisions.

A recent incident in Chesterfield illustrates what can happen when the spirit of the law isn’t followed carefully.

First a brief description of the law:

Public boards, councils and other government entities must give notice of public meetings at least 48 hours ahead of the meeting so that those from the public who would like to attend can make arrangements. Though governmental bodies are permitted to meet in executive sessions (these also require public notice) to discuss sensitive matters such as personnel, they are forbidden from voting and from discussing other issues at such closed-door meetings.

Members of the public have a right to attend the public meetings and hear the discussion and the vote. The law does not guarantee citizens the right to speak at the meeting, but the best boards allow reasonable time for public comment.

The public meeting law is circumvented across the state many times each year, sometimes intentionally by a board that does not wish to face public scrutiny, sometimes accidentally by government officials who are not as familiar with the law as they should be.

The Chesterfield case demonstrates the distrust that can arise when public meeting access is limited. The town park board conducted a public meeting Sept. 10. On the agenda was a discussion of the use of the ball diamonds at Makepeace Park.

The board made the right call to discuss and vote on use of the diamonds during a public meeting. It’s a decision that should be made publicly. However, the handling of the meeting was botched.

Two rival groups of residents were requesting access to the field. One group was asked to wait outside the meeting room while the other group presented its argument. Then, the door to the meeting room was locked, denying access to those who wanted to enter. A park board member says the board didn’t realize the door was locked. Such an oversight shouldn’t occur at a public meeting.

As a result of the locked door and the segregation of the two groups, some members of the groups became suspicious that a deal was being cut. It’s exactly the sort of reaction that the Open Door Law is designed to repel by making the discussion and voting process transparent to all concerned.

The park board’s desire to keep the two groups separate can be attributed to human nature. Most people would rather avoid conflict. But part of the responsibility of serving on a public board is to face conflict, decide in the best interest of the community and handle criticism.

Moreover, public board members must work diligently to assure that both the letter and the spirit of the Indiana Open Door Law are observed without fail.