Lake County board gives more closed-door approvals despite public access finding

Following a request for clarification from the Post-Tribune last month, Indiana's public access councilor took issue with the practice of signing items outside of public sessions, noting that action is "tantamount to a vote."Despite receiving the public access counselor's Open Door Law clarification July 6, commissioners ratified agreements for the Lake County Juvenile Center, Gary courthouse and Lake County Jail. All those agreements were approved last week.

Commissioners' attorney John Dull said two of those items were held over from before the public access counselor's opinion. 

The juvenile center requests, dated July 11, sought $31,039.91 and $34,649.51 for emergency repairs in two pods. The commissioners approved the proposal July 12.

On July 11, commissioners received a proposal for $7,125 in repairs for concrete stairs at the Gary courthouse, which was approved July 12.

Lake County Jail sought approval for $75,964 in repairs for its roof. The commissioners approved the request July 13.

The commissioners, however, agreed Wednesday to start meeting twice a week aside from their regular monthly meetings to approve and sign contracts, purchase orders and other items instead of continuing to rely on its ratification power, where something is signed in advance and later voted on in public session.

"Oh, I'll have a response in a couple weeks," Dull said. "If it takes legal action, you're not going to get it resolved until after the court case is filed."

Dull said that particulars of his recommendations will be made to the commissioners in an executive session.

"I think that there are cases where we have taken liberties with signing things that maybe in the spirit of the law might be violations," said Commissioner Jerry Tippy, R-Schererville. "I think we need to dig deeper in and not say we defend our position 100 percent."

"I think there could be some good that comes out of this," Tippy added. "I think that we need to determine — even if we can legally defend ourselves — what is our responsibility to the public."

Tippy said paperwork just flows through each commissioner's office and maybe the board needs to look at those details.

"I just want the structure and certainty. So whatever adjustments we have to make, then we have to make," said Commissioner Kyle Allen Sr., D-Gary.

The Indiana public access counselor found that the board of commissioners and County Council violated the Open Door Law, saying both boards took final action outside the view of the public when commissioners signed a resolution requiring underground utilities in public rights of way and when the council signed a declaration of support for the measure.

On April 28, two of the three commissioners signed the resolution requiring underground utilities in unincorporated areas, but the measure was ratified during a May 17 meeting, a move Dull said made it retroactive to the date it was first signed.

The Post-Tribune asked the Indiana public access counselor, whose office issues nonbinding opinions, to clarify whether the commissioners' and council's actions were appropriate under the provisions of the state's Open Door Law.

In his opinion, Public Access Counselor Luke Britt said the April 28 signing of the measure was considered "final action" and should have been conducted during a public session.

"There can be no argument disputing that the signing of these two documents constituted a final action taken behind closed doors — even if done individually," Britt wrote. "I discourage such actions regardless of whether the governing body is facing an impending deadline."

The board used to meet every Monday before scaling back how often it met, Dull said, which is what raised the need for ratification.

Tippy, who took office Jan. 1, said it's his impression that it started as a convenience but just grew and grew.

"It grew because of one meeting a month," Dull said.

Commissioner Mike Repay, D-Hammond, said he was on the board when it went from two meetings each month to one, and there wasn't enough material to justify holding two meetings. Repay said that was based on the understanding that ratification procedures were acceptable.

Repay said the issue is that the state wants a three-member executive board where it's more difficult to do anything as opposed to one-person executive.

"How can you take executive action? That is the real sticking point," Repay said.

"How can you run anything effectively when you share those powers with two others equally and then are required to do it in a public meeting?" Repay said. "It's just very strange."@