Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Door Law topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges open-door-law violations at Jan. 29 meeting; county attorney says no formal complaint filed
Summary
A public commenter alleged the county failed to provide required 48-hour notice for a Jan. 29 special meeting; newly appointed County Attorney Beth Copeland responded that the Open Door Law’s 48-hour notice applies to certain notifications and that no formal complaint had been filed with the former state public access counselor.
A resident who attended a Jan. 29 meeting accused county leaders of violating Indiana’s Open Door Law by failing to provide the required notice for that meeting and said multiple officials had told attendees the meeting had been properly advertised.
The resident detailed timestamps from the Jan. 29 meeting and said county auditors and the commission president had told attendees there was confirmation that the meeting had been advertised. The resident said repeated requests for the paper advertisement and confirmation produced inconsistent responses and asked for an apology.
Beth Copeland, the county attorney who said she began employment after the Jan. 29 meeting, addressed the legal question. Copeland said she could not confirm what specific notices had been sent before the Jan. 29 meeting because it predated her employment, but she clarified the Open Door Law’s notice requirements. "The open door law does not require that notice be published in the paper 48 hours in advance," Copeland said. She explained that the statute requires 48-hour notice for public meetings and that media notice requirements apply to media that have requested notification; the term "advertisement" is not a statutory requirement in the way it had been described by the commenter. Copeland also said she had contacted Luke Britt, the former Indiana public access counselor, and that Britt had told her no formal complaints had been filed with his office alleging violations related to that meeting; she said she had that statement in an email and offered to investigate further and report back.
Other speakers urged that the issue be addressed outside the public meeting and suggested the auditor and commission president meet with the commenter. The transcript records no formal vote, complaint filing, or further legal finding at this meeting; Copeland said she would seek to confirm what notices were disseminated before Jan. 29 and report back.
