Why would a government agency want to close its doors to the public and meet in secret?

The Birmingham Construction Industry Authority averted a confrontation with chief critic Ronald Jackson over a taping-ban policy Wednesday, November 12, 1997, opting to record its own meeting and make the tape available to the public. The public should be weary of the fox watching the hen house. Officials recording their meetings makes for public distrust and a chance to edit or alter the tapes before presenting the tapes to the public.

Jackson, executive director of the Birmingham Association of Black Contractors, agreed to comply after they assured him that he or any other public citizen will be able to obtain copies of the tape.

Wednesday's friendly session stood in stark contrast to one last month in which board members of the agency set up in 1990 to assist black contractors abruptly ended a meeting and went into executive session when Jackson attempted to turn on his recorder.

Feeling its newfound liberty and arrogance to violate law, the Alabama Supreme Court appointed an advisory committee to study and author the state's child support guidelines. The Committee consists of lawyers, judges and child support collection agency employees.

On May 3, 1993, two Alabama concerned citizens, James R. Blackston and Bradley W. Barber, accidentally discovered the committee entertaining its members through a meeting, unannounced to the public. When Blackston and Barber tried to record the meeting, the chairman, Judge Richard Dorrough went ballistic and demanded that no provisions were made to record the meeting. As a result of Dorrough's actions, Blackston and Barber sued the state and Dorrough for a violation of free speech and a violation of Alabama's open meeting's law.

Naturally the case was dismissed on a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss and the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings. See Blackston v. State of Alabama, 30 F.3d 117. Blackston and Barber won a small but important victory for Alabama citizen's right to know the business of state demon-cratic (sic) agencies.

However, the victory is short lived as seen by the following problem that proves democracy survives only through eternal vigilance.

Alabama law is clear on when government bodies can meet secretly: Only to discuss a person's "character and good name."

The Alabama Supreme Court has carved out one other narrow exception. It allows public officials to meet in private with their lawyers to discuss legal matters, but only when the public body "is a named party in a lawsuit."

That is a far cry from what the bar group had been pushing. In fact, some government agencies had been using the opinion of the bar's Disciplinary Committee on "attorney-client privilege" as an excuse to meet privately. Does that sound familiar in a monopoly or dictatorial society?

Thanks to an agreement worked out between the bar and the nine news organizations which sued, that will no longer be the case. In fact, the bar will send a letter to members making it clear that lawyers for public bodies should advise their clients of the need to obey the open meetings law. Also, as part of the agreement, public agencies may meet privately to discuss legal advice only when suits already have been filed, not to discuss potential cases. In other words, public agencies should follow public records law and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.

There is good reason a public agency by law should conduct open meetings. Its business is the public's business. Its salaries are paid for by the public. Its clients are members of the public.

The public is best served when its government is open and gives the appearance that eliminates all improprieties. It may not be convenient; it may make tough decisions tougher, but meeting doors to public agencies must stay open.